Search Results

Tradewater // BACK This recommendation was last substantially updated in January 2022 and lightly updated in January 2023 to reflect pricing changes. It may no longer be accurate, both with respect to the evidence it presents and our assessment of the evidence. We do not have plans to update this recommendation in the foreseeable future as we have paused our work assessing direct carbon removal and offset projects. Questions and comments are welcome. Giving Green believes that donating to our top recommendations is likely to be the most impactful giving strategy for supporting climate action. However, we recognize that contributing to policy advocacy (as most of these recommendations do) may not be tenable for all donors, especially businesses. Taking this into consideration, we recommend Mash Makes specifically for businesses given its more direct alignment with corporate net-zero ambitions. We believe Tradewater to be a high-impact option, but we are unsure of the extent to which its cost-effectiveness approaches that of our top recommendations. Overview of Tradewater Mechanism Causality Project-Level Additionality Marginal Additionality Permanence Co-Benefits Cost-Effectiveness Conclusions Overview of Tradewater Tradewater is an organization that works internationally to find and destroy refrigerants and other gases with especially high warming potential; the refrigerants and gases targeted by Tradewater are categorized as ozone-depleting substances (ODS). Tradewater’s revenue comes completely from the carbon offset market, and it sells offsets to consumers through its website. Tradewater also sells larger batches of offsets directly and works with offset brokers as needed. Tradewater engages with a variety of organizations on refrigerant destruction. [1] For example, this year Brown University purchased 137,500 offset credits from Tradewater. [2] This National Geographic piece gives more information about Tradewater’s history and projects. Tradewater has offset projects in Latin America, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia, certified through either the American Carbon Registry (ACR) or Verra. Our analysis of Tradewater uses details from a Verra-certified project in the Dominican Republic, which we believe is generally representative of its projects. In this project, Tradewater gathers ODS from existing stockpiles and transports them to the USA (“or potentially elsewhere in subsequent monitoring events for destruction at a facility that meets the Montreal Protocol’s TEAP requirements” ) for incineration. [3] The project’s offset registry documentation is available here . Mechanism ODS destruction projects, including those conducted by Tradewater, are considered emissions avoidance as they reduce the intensity of emissions that would have otherwise leaked into the atmosphere. Causality As detailed in our research on refrigerant destruction offsets , we assess the causality of the offsets by verifying the following: Converting the ODS into less harmful substances; Establishing the counterfactual of ODS release into the atmosphere; Ensuring that destruction of ODS does not lead to more production of harmful gases; Accounting for the carbon footprint of the removal activities. Conversion of ODS into less harmful substances Tradewater removes GHGs by incinerating ODS, converting them into substances with lower warming potential. Establishing the counterfactual of ODS release into the atmosphere Would ODS gases have escaped in the absence of Tradewater’s project, or would they instead have been sequestered indefinitely in canisters and appliances? The Verra protocol allows projects to claim 100% of destruction when ODS are recovered from appliances at their end-of-life—meaning that Verra assumes 100% of ODS would have leaked if not destroyed—and 25% per year when they are recovered from canisters that could be sold into the market or sit unused in a warehouse. These rates are based on the Article 5 ODS Project Protocol , published by the Climate Action Reserve, a North American offset registry. Overall, the actual leak rate is a major source of uncertainty, as potentially gases in stockpiles could remain sequestered for a long time. However, we think that the overall concept that the gases would eventually leak into the atmosphere is valid. In the Dominican Republic, the majority of ODS that Tradewater destroys are from stockpiles, meaning that the 10-year cumulative emissions would total approximately 94% of the stock-piled ODS under an assumed 25% yearly leak rate. There are no regulations in the Dominican Republic mandating that ODS be destroyed. [4] Therefore it is assumed that the gases would not be destroyed without Tradewater’s involvement. Tradewater considers what would have occurred in the counterfactual scenario when quantifying the CO 2 e impact of their destruction events. Ensuring that destruction of ODS does not lead to more production of harmful gases Destruction of ODS may increase demand for the production of similar gases with high warming potential. According to Tradewater, this is not an issue with its projects because the captured cases of ODS have no further economic use. The appliances that use this type of gas are no longer in service, which is why the ODS is in stockpiles as opposed to being sold in the market. Accounting for the carbon footprint of the removal activities As part of its offset certification process, Tradewater accounts for the carbon footprint of obtaining and transporting the ODS. Tradewater uses a default factor of 7.5 tons of CO 2 e as determined by the Climate Action Reserve; [5] we have used this factor as well in our project analysis in cell D36. Overall, we feel confident that Tradewater’s activities are reducing the intensity of GHGs in the atmosphere. Project-Level Additionality According to Tradewater, it relies on the offset market for 100% of its revenue. Tradewater would not exist without the offset market, so this element of additionality is achieved. Marginal Additionality Tradewater is undertaking multiple ODS destruction projects, and could invest all offset revenue into new projects. Therefore, it is certainly plausible that each offset purchased can directly lead to additional GHGs eliminated. We believe that there is a high case for marginal additionality given that Tradewater has grown from a project of 50,000 tons to undertaking projects avoiding 3 million tons annually. It has also expanded to 11 countries and increased from 6 staff members to 40. [6] However, there is some uncertainty about this assumption given that Tradewater is a privately held for-profit company. If Tradewater, via sale of offsets, is making profits above a reasonable reimbursement for the risk taken by its founders and investors, then it is possible that offset dollars are going towards profit-taking as opposed to carbon removal. In this case, not every offset purchased is truly additional, as Tradewater would likely destroy the same amount of ODS even if fewer offsets were sold. Tradewater’s financials are not public, so it is impossible to know exactly how much of its offset income goes into project operations versus profits. Additionally, it does not disclose the amount needed to purchase the ODS, making it difficult to conduct an independent assessment of the financial flows of offsets. In conversations with Tradewater about this issue, it claimed that its mission is to remove as many refrigerants as possible and, therefore, that it reinvests any profit from a given project into the next project. It also claimed that its owners do not take profit disbursements above their salaries. These are difficult statements to verify, and we encourage Tradewater to make its financials public. Tradewater claims that being a for-profit company allows it to access bank loans, which are needed to finance further removal efforts. We find this argument reasonably compelling. Since we first recommended them two years ago, Tradewater has become a registered B-corp . Permanence When ODS is destroyed by Tradewater, emissions are permanently reduced. Co-Benefits In addition to reducing warming, preventing ODS from being released into the atmosphere also prevents ozone destruction. Cost-Effectiveness As mentioned above, Tradewater receives 100% of its revenue from offsets. We therefore think it is reasonable to assume $18 per ton, the current cost at which Tradewater sells offsets, as a top-line estimate of cost-effectiveness, though actual costs may be lower. Since Tradewater is a for-profit LLC, we unfortunately do not have access to its financial records to assess costs in more detail. To better understand Tradewater’s effectiveness, we assessed data from two Verra-certified projects in Ghana from 2018 and 2019 . Since these data do not include project costs, we cannot use them to sense-check overall cost-effectiveness. Instead, we examined the plausibility of Tradewater’s estimates of (a) counterfactual baseline emissions from destroyed GHG and (b) project emissions. We lightly reviewed these data and found the methodology and inputs to be plausible. [7] This gives us some additional confidence that Tradewater is not substantially overestimating net emissions avoided for its projects, which could in turn cause it to underestimate its cost per tCO2e avoided. The total amount of CO 2 averted is calculated by taking the amount of ODS actually destroyed, and converting this to a CO 2 -equivalent based on the global warming potential (GWP) of ODS. The calculation also includes estimates of how quickly the gas would leak into the atmosphere if it were not destroyed (the “leak rate”) as well as emissions created in the process of transporting and destroying the gas. Although there is some uncertainty in the model parameters, notably the GWP and leak rate, the calculations for Tradewater’s offsets use assumptions, approved by certification bodies like Verra, that we believe are reasonable. The actual cost of destruction is murky, and we have not been provided with exact financials for Tradewater’s projects. However, given the claim by Tradewater that offsets are its only source of revenue, we think that its stated cost of $18 per offset is a realistic cost estimate. Conclusion Overall, we believe the offsets offered by Tradewater are highly credible and that purchasing Tradewater offsets has a direct link to decreasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. Our main concern is that Tradewater is a for-profit company, and therefore could claim offset revenue as profit instead of reinvesting it in further ODS removal projects. We urge Tradewater to make its financials public in order to reassure offset buyers. Note: Tradewater is expanding its projects to include plugging abandoned and orphaned oil and gas wells in the United States that are leaking methane. It plans to begin selling credits for these projects at the beginning of 2023. While we have not currently conducted research on methane capture, we may expand our work to consider this sector in the future. We thank Tim Brown, CEO of Tradewater; Sean Kinghorn, Senior Director of Market Development for Tradewater; and Kirsten Love, Director of Market Development for Tradewater, for a series of conversations that informed this document. Endnotes [1] The Catalytic Coalition. https://tradewater.us/catalytic-coalition/ [2] "As part of its Sustainability Strategic Plan, Brown will eliminate 137,500 tons of greenhouse gases through the purchase of high-quality carbon offset credits from Tradewater.” https://www.prweb.com/releases/2022/6/prweb18730717.htm [3] https://registry.verra.org/app/projectDetail/VCS/2449 [4] "In summary, current regulations in the Dominican Republic do not mandate the destruction of ODS material in the country, as other options for the management of ODS are suggested and allowed besides just final disposal." https://registry.verra.org/app/projectDetail/VCS/2449 [5] “The emission factor shall be equal to 7.5 pounds CO2e per pound of ODS refrigerant destroyed. This emission factor aggregates both transportation and destruction emissions.” https://www.climateactionreserve.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Article_5_ODS_Protocol_V2.0_Draft_for_Public_Comment.pdf [6] Email communication with Tradewater. 2022-11-11 [7] We did not conduct an in-depth review of these data. Instead, we more closely examined important parameters such as the leak rate (how quickly the gas would have leaked into the atmosphere if it weren’t destroyed), project crediting period, and line items for project emissions.

Future Cleantech Architects: Deep Dive // BACK Download the report: Future Cleantech Architects - Deep Dive .pdf Download PDF • 682KB Summary What is Future Cleantech Architects? Future Cleantech Architects (FCA) is a climate innovation think tank based in Germany. Hard-to-abate sectors—such as heavy industry, firm power, and aviation—require significant technological advances to decarbonize yet are often neglected by funders and governments. FCA was founded in 2020 to close these innovation gaps by (i) engaging with policymakers to prioritize research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) for these critical interventions and (ii) leading research consortia to advance scientific knowledge for these applications. How could Future Cleantech Architects address climate change? FCA promotes and advances innovation in hard-to-abate sectors through policy advocacy, field building, thought leadership, and technical analysis. We think these activities will accelerate the transition towards clean industrial processes. Future Cleantech Architects’ theory of change: FCA’s policy advocacy and field-building efforts are based on its technical analysis, which identifies innovation gaps and barriers to progress. We think the main outputs from FCA’s policy advocacy would be the EU increasing its funding for industrial decarbonization RD&D, implementing regulations that support low-carbon production, and enacting low-carbon procurement policies. We think its field-building work elevates neglected and important sectors and results in a) more money and talent directed towards high-impact decarbonization pathways and b) more knowledge, technical, and policy support accessible for producers to advance RD&D projects. Although FCA’s work has an EU focus, we think there is a strong argument for global spillover effects through policy leadership, trade regulations like the carbon border adjustment mechanism, and technological innovation. What is Future Cleantech Architects’ cost-effectiveness? In 2024, we developed a highly subjective back-of-the-envelope calculation (BOTEC) to estimate the costs and impacts of FCA’s policy engagement for the third revision of the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive. Overall, we estimate that FCA is highly cost-effective. We have low confidence in the accuracy of this BOTEC, and focusing this calculation on one aspect of FCA’s policy engagement is unlikely to generalize to the organization’s overall cost-effectiveness. However, we view it as a positive input into our overall assessment of FCA. Is there room for more funding? FCA has ambitious growth plans to double in size in 2025. Its expansion aims to build capacity to shape the agenda of the next EU policy cycle, expand its analytical and advocacy work on clean firm power, and grow its international reach by leveraging its connections to intergovernmental organizations and building a presence in key countries. We think FCA can productively absorb more funding based on this expansion plan. Are there major co-benefits or adverse effects? We think the co-benefits and potential risks of FCA’s efforts are similar to those for the broader effort to decarbonize heavy industry—mainly, the co-benefit of improved air quality and uncertain effects on global employment. Key uncertainties and open questions: Our key uncertainties include the degree to which FCA can absorb more funding, its ability to rapidly grow in size and work effectively in new regions, and the feasibility of ambitious climate legislation in the current EU policy ecosystem. Bottom line / next steps: We classify Future Cleantech Architects (FCA) as one of our Top Nonprofits addressing climate change. We think FCA’s focus on and expertise in neglected areas in the climate mitigation portfolio fill a critical space in the civil society ecosystem. In addition, our impression is that FCA has been successful at folding this technical expertise into the EU policymaking process, thereby increasing the knowledge of policymakers and the effectiveness of policy vehicles. We also think FCA’s expanding international presence will benefit global climate discourse.

Opportunity Green: Deep Dive // BACK Download the report: Opportunity Green - Deep Dive .pdf Download PDF • 1.11MB Summary What is Opportunity Green? Opportunity Green is a UK-based nonprofit focused on addressing gaps in global climate policy. Founded in 2021, it began with a focus on the global decarbonization of aviation and maritime shipping via policy, economic, and legal avenues. It also aims to identify and address broader legal and regulatory gaps to accelerate decarbonization in sectors such as buildings, agriculture, and steel. We base our recommendation on Opportunity Green’s aviation and maritime shipping work and have not assessed its efforts in other sectors. How could Opportunity Green address climate change? Opportunity Green invokes three main strategies in its work to decarbonize maritime shipping and aviation: (i) facilitating a private sector coalition to promote sustainable fuels, (ii) increasing representation from climate-vulnerable countries in the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to promote more progressive policies, and (iii) identifying and pursuing strategic legal action. Through these strategies, Opportunity Green aims to reduce emissions by decreasing demand for aviation and shipping, shifting industries to clean, alternative fuels, and ensuring that climate-vulnerable countries are supported in the transition. What is its cost-effectiveness? In 2024, we developed a highly subjective cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to estimate the costs and impacts of Opportunity Green’s engagement with the IMO to enact regulations that decarbonize international shipping. Overall, we estimate it could plausibly be within the range of cost-effectiveness we would consider for a top recommendation. We have low confidence in the accuracy of this CEA, and an analysis focused on Opportunity Green’s IMO engagement is unlikely to generalize to its overall cost-effectiveness. However, we generally view it as a positive input to our overall assessment of Opportunity Green. Is there room for more funding? Opportunity Green could use additional funding to cover operational costs, hire more staff across projects, increase analytical capacity, and expand its communications team. In particular, Opportunity Green would use funds to open a Brussels office to assist them in influencing EU policy; having an EU entity will also allow its team to launch legal challenges against EU institutions. Opportunity Green’s leadership values a healthy work culture and would also use funds to help ensure employee security and progression. Are there major co-benefits or potential risks? We think Opportunity Green’s potential co-benefits and potential risks are linked to the technologies for which it advocates. For example, co-benefits of green hydrogen-derived alternative fuels include lower air pollution, and potential risks include toxicity and other safety concerns. See our deep dive, Decarbonizing Aviation and Maritime Shipping , for more information. Key uncertainties and open questions: Our key uncertainties include our ability to evaluate the effectiveness of a young organization, Opportunity Green’s potential difficulties attracting industry members to a coalition with ambitious climate targets, the effectiveness of legal action as a climate intervention, and the general feasibility of decarbonizing aviation. Bottom line / next steps: We classify Opportunity Green as one of our top recommendations for nonprofits addressing climate change. We think it has a strong theory of change that tackles multiple pathways of influence, including coalition and capacity building, policy advocacy, and legal action. Opportunity Green is a small organization with robust plans for growth and the ability to utilize significant amounts of additional funding.

This year’s research and recommendations for high-impact climate giving It’s been a big year for us at Giving Green.  Earlier this summer, we announced that we received a transformative $10 million anonymous donation  and introduced the expanded scope of the Giving Green Fund , marking the start of an exciting new chapter for Giving Green and our impact on the climate giving ecosystem. Now, we’re thrilled to share our latest recommendations and grantees.  This includes the annual Top Nonprofits list you know and love, featuring the most effective nonprofits tackling climate mitigation on a systemic level. The 2024 list includes a new addition focused on decarbonizing heavy industry that we can’t wait to tell you about.  For the first time this year, we’re also supporting 20+ additional organizations making big contributions to Giving Green’s top-recommended philanthropic strategies. These smaller, single disbursement grants are funding a broader range of high-impact projects, including but not limited to promising young organizations and ecosystems of mission-aligned organizations. In this post, we’ll walk through the details of our latest research, share why these organizations and philanthropic strategies stand out, and highlight how donors can make the biggest impact.  Table of contents Philanthropic strategies to fund this year Reducing food systems emissions Decarbonizing aviation and maritime shipping Decarbonizing heavy industry Advancing next-generation geothermal Supporting advanced nuclear Advancing the energy transition in LMICs Advancing solar radiation management (SRM) governance Scaling demand for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) Our Top Nonprofits and grantees Top Nonprofits 2024 grantees How you can take effective climate action Join our Giving Tuesday webinar Donate to top climate nonprofits Support Giving Green's research Philanthropic strategies to fund this year Giving Green’s research process starts at the level of philanthropic strategies, which are specific approaches that donors can take to slow climate change.  We start with a wide view of strategies and then narrow down this list using our “Scale, Feasibility, Funding Need” framework. This looks for strategies that have the potential to drive major warming decreases, where philanthropy can progress the solution, and where there is relative neglect from funders.  This approach tends to select strategies focused on systems change. For a closer look at all of the philanthropic strategies we evaluated in this process, have a look at   our full research dashboard here .  From our long list of 30 philanthropic strategies, we decided to focus on eight in 2024. Five you’ll recognize from previous years: reducing food systems emissions , decarbonizing aviation and maritime shipping, decarbonizing heavy industry , advancing   next-generation geothermal energy , and supporting   advanced nuclear . Plus three strategies that are new this year— advancing   the energy transition in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) , advancing   solar radiation management (SRM) governance , and  scaling demand for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) . Since decarbonizing aviation and maritime shipping and next-gen geothermal energy were big priorities last year, we placed less emphasis on them in this year’s evaluations and grant disbursements.  For each of our eight prioritized philanthropic strategies, we dug deep into the approach and identified priority sub-strategies as well as the highest-leverage funding opportunities to advance them. For each strategy, we have written a detailed “deep dive” to guide donors interested in the space.  Historically, our strategies have squarely focused on climate mitigation, meaning that they focused on addressing our top priority: reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  This year, we also explored “climate interventions”—strategies that don’t address the source of warming but, given the rapid rate of warming, offer promising opportunities to supplement emissions reductions and protect human and ecological well-being. SRM governance and CDR fall into this category. Have a look at this table to see how all eight ranked in scale, feasibility, and funding need: Below, we’ll walk you through every strategy, and which nonprofits we’re recommending and granting in each sector in 2024.  Reducing food systems emissions The food sector emits up to 26% of global greenhouse gas emissions, with 42-65% of those emissions deriving from livestock. We decided to focus our food systems grantmaking on livestock emissions because it’s an astonishingly large fraction of global emissions, but policy and technological progress is still insufficient to reduce these emissions.  Specifically, we found the following sub-strategies the most promising for grantmakers: Efforts to make alternative proteins more taste- and price-competitive with meat Advocating for landmark EU legislation to price agricultural emissions Reducing enteric methane emissions – a byproduct of digestion in ruminant animals like cows and sheep.  We recommend funding The Good Food Institute  for its groundbreaking work advancing alternative proteins. Additionally, the Giving Green fund is planning to award grants to Future Matters , and the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP)   for their policy work in the EU,  and Spark Climate Solutions  for their efforts to reduce enteric methane emissions. To learn more, check out our deep dive on reducing food systems emissions .  Decarbonizing aviation and maritime shipping Currently, aviation and maritime shipping account for 6% of global emissions, but given the rate of demand increase paired with lagging decarbonization efforts, these sectors are projected to account for more than 30% of global emissions by 2050 if left unmitigated. Electrification is not as central to decarbonizing aviation and maritime shipping, which will depend heavily on technological advancements such as clean, alternative fuels. Consequently, aviation and maritime shipping are generally considered hard to abate. We believe there is an opportunity to direct more capital to advocacy efforts to pass regulations on aviation and shipping emissions, as well as policies to support the development and scale of next-gen technologies and alternative fuels. Given the challenges of decarbonization, the lack of funding these subsectors of transport have received thus far, and the reluctance of the industries to make commitments voluntarily, this represents a high-impact philanthropic strategy with a need for funding. For this strategy, we recommend giving to the Clean Air Task Force (CATF)  for its work advancing zero-carbon fuels, and transportation decarbonization, and Opportunity Green  for its efforts to close gaps in global climate policy in the sector.  To learn more, check out our deep dive on aviation and maritime shipping decarbonization .  Decarbonizing heavy industry Heavy industry accounts for around one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions and is considered hard to abate due to the difficulty of electrifying certain industrial processes and persisting gaps in innovation. We found the most promising sub-strategies to be as follows: Efforts to advocate for corporations and governments to make low-carbon purchase commitments. Advocacy for governments to enact regulation that supports decarbonization. Advocacy for governments to increase funding for research, development, and demonstration.  Funding nonprofits in regions dense with heavy industry production, especially LMICs. We think their local civil society ecosystems have been especially neglected and there is room to grow their engagement with local governments and manufacturers. Here, our top recommendations are Future Cleantech Architects  for its efforts to close innovation gaps and Industrious Labs  for its work scaling industrial decarbonization advocacy. Additionally, Giving Green is supporting US nonprofits Evergreen , BlueGreen Alliance Foundation (BGAF) , and ClearPath  for their work on domestic decarbonization of heavy industry and global trade policy. We are also supporting Climate Catalyst  and Solutions for our Climate  for their work to decarbonize heavy industry in regions dense with industrial production, such as India, Indonesia, and South Korea.  To learn more, check out our deep dive on decarbonizing heavy industry.   Advancing next-generation geothermal The need to transition to clean energy is clear, but a solely renewables-based grid is too costly to scale. Clean, firm energy sources that provide steady 24/7 power independent of weather or seasons are needed to complement renewables like wind and solar. And to scale these firm energy sources, they’ll need to become cheaper.  Until now, geothermal systems have been confined to geographic locations near tectonic plates. Recent technological advances have made it possible for geothermal energy to expand to new beyond these locations, making the next few years a critical window to support and scale next-gen geothermal. We believe now is the time to support the development of next-gen geothermal technologies and minimize their cost and risk so they can accelerate the clean energy transition. We recommend funding Project InnerSpace  for its efforts to fast-track next-gen geothermal technologies capable of unlocking geothermal energy from more places, and Clean Air Task Force (CATF)  for research and development of next-gen geothermal energy technologies. To learn more, check out our deep dive on geothermal energy .  Supporting advanced nuclear Clean, firm energy sources are needed to complement renewables like wind and solar in the clean energy transition. Nuclear energy offers a 24/7 energy source that can help decarbonize the grid and play a critical role in decarbonizing heavy industry, but steep costs are standing in the way of bringing it to scale.  To scale nuclear, we think more funding should be directed at the research, development, and deployment of advanced reactors, which are more versatile and affordable to build than traditional large-scale reactors. Our approach has a US focus because the US currently has an appetite to become a global leader in commercial nuclear energy again, creating a chance to push for regulatory reforms and more support for domestic nuclear. The world is also looking to the US to lead innovation and demonstrate novel designs before they import and implement these technologies themselves. This offers a high-impact opportunity for funders to support US nonprofits that are working on derisking investments, addressing the commercial stalemate between vendors and buyers, and clearing the path for US exports.  This year, the Giving Green fund is planning to award grants  to an ecosystem of organizations focused on supporting nuclear power: Good Energy Collective , ClearPath , and Nuclear Innovation Alliance . We are also supporting two other organizations, Clean Air Task Force (CATF)  and Energy for Growth Hub , where advancing nuclear energy is one key component of their work.  To learn more, check out our deep dive on nuclear power .  Advancing the energy transition in LMICs In addition to looking into sector-specific funding opportunities in LMICs, such as heavy industry decarbonization, we evaluated the broader energy transition in these countries. Currently, high-income countries (HICs) are responsible for the majority of global cumulative emissions, but emissions in LMICs are increasing three times as fast  and are on track to surpass HIC emissions by 2040.  Funding the energy transition in LMICs is an extremely wide strategy – for 2024, we decided to place a specific focus on India and Indonesia, as these are two of the highest-emitting LMICs where international donors can make an impact. (See our deep dive  for more information on country prioritization.)  Additionally, we focused on the following sub-strategies: Research and knowledge creation Government policy and engagement Mobilizing finance and derisking clean energy projects One of our Top Nonprofits, Project InnerSpace , works to decarbonize LMICs through expanding geothermal energy mapping in India and Southeast Asia. This year, the Giving Green Fund is also planning to award grants  to Prayas and  IIT Delhi , The Center for Study of Science, Technology and Policy (CSTEP) , Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development (IGSD) , Vasudha Foundation , Energy for Growth Hub , and Climate Catalyst  for their work to advance the energy transition in LMICs.  To learn more, check out our deep dive on the energy transition in LMICs .  Advancing solar radiation management (SRM) governance SRM encompasses a range of techniques to reflect the sun’s rays to reduce global temperatures. SRM is not a substitute for mitigation as it does not reduce emissions, nor address other effects of increased levels of atmospheric CO2. However, it may be temporarily needed to limit warming and reduce its secondary negative effects on human life and ecosystems. Governance structures can help reduce the likelihood of unregulated deployment while enabling responsible research to advance our understanding of whether SRM could be a viable strategy to protect the most vulnerable. Civil society engagement in the coming years is particularly crucial to foster more inclusive governance frameworks and build capacity for more informed decision-making around SRM.  In 2024, the Giving Green Fund plans to grant to The Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering (DSG)  and International Center for Future Generations (ICFG)  for their efforts to democratize conversations about SRM governance and foster international collaboration. To learn more, check out our deep dive on SRM governance .  Scaling demand for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) Pathways to achieving net zero will require some level of carbon removal to balance residual emissions from hard-to-abate sectors such as aviation and heavy industry. In addition, humanity has emitted 1.5 trillion tons of CO2 since the Industrial Revolution, and even if we reach net zero, these “legacy” emissions will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years.  In tandem with a multifaceted climate mitigation plan that addresses the root cause of emissions, it is projected that we will need to remove 10 billion tons of CO2 per year by 2050 to meet mid-century climate goals. Exploring and unlocking new opportunities for generating demand, especially through innovative policy approaches, will be necessary for scaling CDR.   This year, we will be granting to Carbon Removal Standards Initiative (CRSI) , 4 Corners , and CarbonPlan  in an effort to grow the ecosystem of nonprofits working to unlock demand through innovative policy approaches that are underexplored but hold great potential. To learn more, check out our deep dive on carbon dioxide removal .  Interested in learning more about our Top Nonprofits and grantees?  The following tables will walk you through each Top Nonprofit and grantee, which philanthropic strategies each are tackling, and what the Giving Green Fund plans to grant to each of them this Giving Season. In the last column, you can click to view write-ups detailing our research on each of them.  Giving Green’s 2024 Top Nonprofits TOP NONPROFITS PHILANTHROPIC STRATEGY Q4 2024 GRANT AMOUNT LINK  Decarbonizing Aviation + Maritime Shipping Next-Gen Geothermal Energy Advanced Nuclear $2,100,000 Click to view summary. Decarbonizing Heavy Industry Decarbonizing Aviation + Maritime Shipping $600,000 Click to view summary. Decarbonizing Food Systems $2,100,000 Click to view summary. Decarbonizing Heavy Industry $600,000 Click to view summary. Decarbonizing Aviation + Maritime Shipping $600,000 Click to view summary. Next-Gen Geothermal Energy $600,000 Click to view summary. The Giving Green Fund’s 2024 Grantees GRANTEES PHILANTHROPIC STRATEGY Q4 2024 GRANT AMOUNT LINK  Climate Catalyst Decarbonizing Heavy Industry $350,000 Click to view grant write-up. Evergreen Collaborative Decarbonizing Heavy Industry $100,000 Click to view grant write-up. BlueGreen Alliance Foundation (BGAF) Decarbonizing Heavy Industry $100,000 Click to view grant write-up. Solutions for our Climate (SFOC) Decarbonizing Heavy Industry $200,000 Click to view grant write-up . Prayas and IIT Delhi Energy Transition in LMICs $300,000 Click to view grant write-up. The Center for Study of Science, Technology and Policy (CSTEP) Energy Transition in LMICs $200,000 Click to view grant write-up. Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development (IGSD) Energy Transition in LMICs $200,000 Click to view grant write-up. Vasudha Foundation Energy Transition in LMICs $100,000 Click to view grant write-up. Energy for Growth Hub Energy Transition in LMICs Advanced Nuclear Energy $300,000 Click to view grant write-up. Future Matters Reducing Food Systems Emissions $200,000 Click to view grant write-up. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) Reducing Food Systems Emissions $115,000 Click to view grant write-up. Spark Climate Solutions Reducing Food Systems Emissions $100,000 Click to view grant write-up. Good Energy Collective Advanced Nuclear Energy $250,000 Click to view grant write-up. ClearPath Advanced Nuclear Energy Decarbonizing Heavy Industry $350,000 Click to view grant write-up. Nuclear Innovation Alliance Advanced Nuclear Energy $250,000 Click to view grant write-up. Carbon Removal Standards Initiative (CRSI) Carbon Dioxide Removal $250,000 Click to view grant write-up. 4 Corners Carbon Dioxide Removal $100,000 Click to view grant write-up. CarbonPlan Carbon Dioxide Removal $70,000 Click to view grant write-up. The Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering (DSG) Solar Radiation Management $200,000 Click to view grant write-up. International Center for Future Generations (ICFG) Solar Radiation Management $100,000 Click to view grant write-up. How you can take effective climate action Feeling compelled to act on our findings? Here are a few actions you can take this Giving Season:  Learn more at our Giving Tuesday webinar Join us on December 5 to hear directly from some of our Top Nonprofits about the landscape for bold climate philanthropy. Donate to the Giving Green Fund If you want to donate based on Giving Green’s recommendations but can’t choose just one, a donation to the   Giving Green Fund   is a great way to support all of Giving Green’s Top Nonprofits in one easy step with no management fees.  Donating to our fund also allows you to support additional high-impact opportunities identified by Giving Green’s research team. This may mean additional grants to our current grantees or supporting new grantees. Either way, you will fund a more diverse set of thoroughly vetted, high-impact climate nonprofits advancing a wider set of effective philanthropic strategies.  Donate to top climate nonprofits Alternatively, you can donate   directly to any of the recommended nonprofits . Support Giving Green’s research Every year, the Giving Green team dedicates thousands of hours to identifying and supporting the most effective climate charities. Since we take no portion of the donations made to our recommended organizations, we rely on the generosity of donors to sustain our research and outreach efforts. In the past, every dollar invested in Giving Green’s operations has generated $15 in donations to high-impact climate initiatives. Support our work to be a climate impact multiplier . As always, we welcome you to reach out with questions, feedback, requests for personalized climate giving support, collaboration inquiries, etc. Whatever it may be and wherever you are in your climate journey, we want to hear from you! Contact us   here .

In light of the US election results, we know many are concerned about what this means for the future of our climate. There is no denying that we have a tough four years ahead of us. At Giving Green, our work is rooted in the big picture. We understand that the road to climate mitigation and decarbonization is a long one with many ups and downs. In the face of setbacks, we will stay focused and keep moving in the right direction.  We want to reassure our community that we have long been preparing for this moment. Our research and recommendations are guided by a long-term, global strategy that accounts for multiple levers of systems change. This includes policy—on an international, state, and federal level—as well as technology development, market shaping, building social license, and more.  We took steps to prepare for a shift in the political landscape and kept this possibility top of mind when evaluating our 2024 climate giving recommendations . We chose each philanthropic strategy and Top Nonprofit in part for its promise to drive decarbonization efforts regardless of which party holds power. Additionally, since climate change is a global problem that requires global solutions, we took care to include nonprofits based outside of the US and organizations with an international reach.  Rest assured that this shift in political power has not changed our conviction in this year’s recommendations. Now more than ever, we believe that one of the best ways to support the climate movement is by strengthening civil society and supporting resilient and highly effective nonprofits tackling the issue.  Over the next four years and beyond, we are committed to staying nimble and humble, and will constantly be adapting our research, evaluation, and grantmaking strategies to meet needs as they arise. With the Giving Green Fund  especially, we are prepared to use our expanded scope of grants  to move quickly and strategically to get funds in the hands of the climate nonprofits best positioned to keep the movement’s foot on the pedal of progress.  We have our work cut out for us, but we are up to the challenge. As are our Top Nonprofits, Giving Green Fund grantees, and the rest of the climate movement.  But don’t just take our word for it. Here’s what some of our Top Nonprofits are saying:  “Clean energy, innovation, clean air, and climate action are broadly popular across the country, and they can and must progress regardless of who sits in the White House.  If the incoming president chooses to cede U.S. leadership on the global climate stage, there will be many ready to fill the void — and new opportunities for U.S. states, businesses, investors, and other non-state actors to step up.   And that’s what CATF will fight for. The climate challenge is a century long one, and you don’t hit pause when politicians push unpopular policies that would take us backwards. We will be vigorously defending gains made, assessing the changed landscape, and finding new ways of moving progress forward, with allies across the political and business spectrum.”   – Clean Air Task Force (CATF)   (Read more here ). "GFI’s vision of creating a world where alternative proteins are no longer alternative is built on a theory of change that can succeed under different governments around the world.   Good policy is good policy. What’s good for the future of American consumers, farmers, national security, and business remains the same. We’re here to keep amplifying how America can lead the world in building the agricultural innovations and bioeconomy of tomorrow, and to ensure consumers have the freedom to choose the food they eat. We made huge strides on alternative proteins in the U.S. under many administrations (including the last Trump administration), and thanks to the work of our exceptional team, our strategies will evolve to meet this new moment.”   – The Good Food Institute   “Getting to a zero-carbon industry future can’t wait and neither will we. Together with partners, we are relentless in pushing forward in the venues where change is possible: at the state level, with corporate campaigns, international networks, and some strategic federal advocacy and defense.” – Industrious Labs

Table of contents Background Systems change and pulling multiple levers Giving Green’s prioritized impact areas Industrial decarbonization Decreasing livestock emissions Carbon removal Supporting the energy transition in LMICs Nuclear power Solar geoengineering governance and coordination How you can take effective climate action Endnotes Background When we launched the Giving Green Fund  in 2022, we initially focused on recommending timely grants to our Top Nonprofit recommendations  based on their specific funding needs. We’ve since expanded our approach to include growth and ecosystem grants to promising organizations, as outlined in our previous blog post . With huge thanks to an anonymous gift we received in early 2024 , we intend to recommend allocations totaling at least $10M USD by the end of this year.  In this post, we outline the priorities we have set for the Giving Green Fund in 2024, to be clear about our decision-making process and indicate the types of levers we might recommend funding this year. We invite organizations working in our prioritized impact areas to connect with us and we invite feedback on our approach. Systems change and pulling multiple levers To match the immensity of climate change, we believe mitigation requires a holistic strategy and deep societal transformation. Therefore, we focus on systems change instead of incremental action, and a portfolio of options instead of a single agenda. By focusing on these, we believe our high-level strategy and evidence-based approach gives donors more “bang for their buck” in the fight against climate change. Our focus on systems change: We categorize systems change interventions as ones with high potential for scale but perhaps a more uncertain or longer path to impact. Major interventions include policy advocacy, technology development, and market shaping, which all overlap with one another. Together, these interventions have and will continue to influence the adoption rate of new, greener technologies over existing, highly-polluting ones. For example, these have been the levers that have helped solar photovoltaic and battery technologies rapidly drop in price.[1] Our portfolio approach: We support diverse impact areas because there is no single solution to climate change. Tackling climate change requires various tools to address different sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, the uncertainty of systems change makes multiple approaches necessary if we want to increase our chances of success. Giving Green’s prioritized impact areas As part of our research process , we evaluate impact areas on the basis of scale, feasibility, and funding need . Based on our 2024 assessments, we have prioritized finding promising new funding opportunities in the following impact areas: Industrial decarbonization Decreasing livestock emissions Carbon removal Supporting the energy transition in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) Nuclear power Solar geoengineering governance and coordination We note that this list of prioritized impact areas is preliminary and we may not support funding new opportunities in all these areas. Additionally, shipping and aviation and next-generation geothermal technologies are still priorities for us. However, we do not plan to recommend additional grants in those impact areas outside of our current top recommendations, due to capacity constraints and the recency of our previous work in these areas. We plan to re-evaluate these impact areas in 2025. Honing in on our prioritized impact areas, we are interested in considering grants that address the challenges and levers described below. Industrial decarbonization Challenge: Heavy industries like steel and cement are the literal building blocks of the global economy. Heavy industry accounts for around one-third of greenhouse gas emissions, but has received very little attention from government or philanthropy. What we’re interested in exploring:  We are interested in organizations working to reduce emission in industrial sectors, and are open to a variety of potential mechanisms. We will prioritize actions working on systems change and will consider global impacts of any organizations.  Example levers: Building adequate demand for low-carbon products. Developing a supportive regulatory framework. Transition assistance that facilitates a switch to low-carbon production. Decreasing livestock emissions Challenge: Livestock production is responsible for ~15% of global emissions – some livestock belch methane, require substantial (often deforested) grazing land, and contribute to general supply chain emissions.[2] What we’re interested in exploring: We are interested in organizations that work to reduce some demand for high-emitting livestock products. We are also interested in organizations addressing direct methane emissions from livestock (enteric methane), which we think has been relatively neglected. Example levers: Research, industry, and policy support for alternative proteins. Policy advocacy for pricing agricultural emissions, such as the development of an agricultural emissions trading scheme. Research and policy support for reducing enteric methane emissions. Carbon removal Challenge: To reach mid-century climate goals, it is estimated that we will need to remove 10 billion tons of CO2 per year by 2050 to account for residual emissions.[3] However, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is far from ready to meet this demand, and there remains a need for policy and regulatory structures to scale this work. What we’re interested in exploring: We believe it's important to ensure civil society engagement matches private interest and investment in CDR. Supporting nonprofits can be valuable, as they can focus on tasks that industry might neglect, such as developing standards and protocols, policy advocacy, and ecosystem building. Example levers include: High-level strategies for government and international policies. Local policies and projects to build grassroots support for CDR. Increased global engagement, especially in LMICs. Supporting the energy transition in LMICs Challenge: We have identified India and Indonesia as focus countries because they are currently among the world’s top ten emitters and emissions in these fossil-fuel-dependent countries are expected to rise under business-as-usual.[4] If market barriers to carbon-free electricity production remain in place, the power sector will likely remain a major source of emissions as the countries’ total generation climbs. Demand for space cooling is also expected to soar in both countries as outside temperatures increase.[5] Inefficient air conditioners impact emissions and can strain the power grid, while lack of access to cooling adversely affects human health and wellbeing. What we’re interested in exploring: Our team is broadly interested in supporting organizations that can help enable a clean energy transition, such as through increasing renewables or improving energy efficiency, while ensuring energy access. Example levers: Developing energy transition plans and advocating for supportive and additive climate policies. Supporting private sector investment in zero-carbon technologies. Support for clean cooling, such as supporting building designs that reduce the need for mechanical cooling and making highly-efficient air conditioners that are already on the market more affordable. Nuclear power Challenge: We think nuclear power can play an important part in decarbonization because it provides consistent, carbon-free energy with a small land footprint. As part of a diverse energy portfolio, it can complement other energy sources, such as wind and solar. Our theory of change is that support for US-based nuclear innovation may help spread advanced nuclear reactors worldwide by reducing costs, providing a model for other countries, and enabling technology transfer. For this to happen, the US must show strong domestic demand and become a major exporter of these technologies. To achieve this, nuclear energy costs must be competitive with other low-carbon options, but currently, there is a stalemate between nuclear vendors and domestic buyers.[6] Additionally, vendors face numerous barriers in global markets.[7] What we’re interested in exploring: We are interested in efforts that could help derisk early projects and accelerate private sector commitment, especially for innovative designs. We are also broadly interested in efforts that could help boost domestic demand for nuclear power to help build a case for nuclear globally. Example levers: Policy advocacy for efforts that would help derisk early projects (e.g., building an orderbook by aggregating demand, cost overrun insurance, financial assistance). Community engagement to ensure and maintain a social license to operate. Solar geoengineering governance and coordination Challenge: Solar geoengineering aims to manage warming by either reflecting more sunlight away from the Earth or reducing the trapping of outgoing thermal radiation. Because research and interest in solar geoengineering are increasing, we believe there is a strong need for governance and coordination that minimizes its risks and prioritizes climate-vulnerable countries in discussion.[8] What we’re interested in exploring: We are interested in organizations conducting research that is deeply engaged with wider questions around the societal and environmental impacts of solar geoengineering. Additionally, given the environmental justice concerns surrounding decision-making processes for solar geoengineering, we’re also interested in organizations that work on international coordination. Example levers: Establishing regulations and standards of good practice to ensure high-quality research that avoids harm to humans and the environment. Capacity-building to involve climate-vulnerable countries in solar geoengineering governance. Additional thoughts: We think progress on solar geoengineering, even when it comes from well-meaning organizations, could pose a moral hazard by undermining progress on climate change mitigation. Given our uncertainties and concerns around solar geoengineering, we think we should only fund solar geoengineering governance and coordination if we think there is strong evidence to suggest that funding solar geoengineering governance is likely to increase the safety of solar geoengineering research and reduce the risk of moral hazard. How you can take effective climate action If you’re interested in helping us implement our strategy, here are a couple of ways you can take climate action, effectively: Donate to climate nonprofits : You can donate to the Giving Green Fund , which regrants to highly effective giving opportunities identified by our team, with no management fees. Alternatively, you can donate directly to any of our top nonprofits.  Support Giving Green’s research: Each year, the Giving Green team spends thousands of hours to find and fund effective climate charities. We do not take any cut of donations to our recommendations, so we rely on generous donors to fund our research and communications efforts. Historically, every dollar donated to Giving Green’s operations has been converted into $11 of additional donations to high-impact climate charities. Support our work  to be a climate impact multiplier. Questions? Want to collaborate? Regardless of where you are along your climate journey, we would love to hear from you. Contact us here . Endnotes 1.  Gavlak et al (2018) “Evaluating the causes of cost reduction in photovoltaic modules” 2.  “In short, livestock production appears to contribute about 11%–17% of global greenhouse gas emissions, when using the most recent GWP-100 values, though there remains great uncertainty in much of the underlying data such as methane emissions from enteric fermentation, CO2 emissions from grazing land, or land-use change caused by animal agriculture.” https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-agriculture-environment/livestock-dont-contribute-14-5-of-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions 3.  “Recent analyses of economically optimal solutions to the climate problem have concluded that NETs will play as significant a role as any mitigation technology, with perhaps 10 Gt/y CO2 of negative emissions needed approximately at midcentury and 20 Gt/y CO2 by the century’s end.” 4.  Current emissions: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-share-of-co2-emissions?tab=table . 5.  “By 2050, around 2/3 of the world’s households could have an air conditioner. China, India and Indonesia will together account for half of the total number.” https://www.iea.org/reports/the-future-of-cooling 6.  “However, the nuclear industry today is at a commercial stalemate between potential customers and investments in the nuclear industrial base needed for deployment—putting decarbonization goals at risk. Utilities and other potential customers recognize the need for nuclear power, but perceived risks of uncontrolled cost overrun and project abandonment have limited committed orders for new reactors.” https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/20230320-Liftoff-Advanced-Nuclear-vPUB.pdf 7.  “However, a number of potential barriers exist for U.S. vendors in global markets, such as a complicated set of rules to market and sell nuclear products internationally, increased competition among nations, and potential expansion of nuclear reactors into newcomer countries that may lack effective government, industry, and societal frameworks to support the facilities. These potential barriers (some of which U.S. vendors have little control over) include development of regulatory oversight capabilities, financing mechanisms that provide market advantages to non-U.S. vendors, management of the fuel cycle, expanded transportation networks for nuclear materials, and education and outreach to local communities that may house reactors.” National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Laying the Foundation for New and Advanced Nuclear Reactors in the United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26630 . 8.  Increase in research and interest: “Historically, the topic of SG has been deeply controversial in the climate change community, with extreme hesitancy and taboo surrounding both scientific and governance engagement in the field. While there is still reticence, major institutions and organizations with strong influence are showing signs of a major shift in perception, activity, and interest over the last two to three years. Research efforts are starting to expand, there has been a significant increase in focus on SG governance—both domestically and globally, and press coverage is mounting.” https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/KCEP-Digest-59-Solar-Geoengineering.pdf