Search Results

Evergreen Collaborative // BACK Overview The Giving Green Fund plans to award a restricted grant to Evergreen Collaborative, a US-based, climate policy advocacy group. This is one of a series of grants to support an ecosystem of nonprofits working to expand and decarbonize domestic industrial production through increased public and private investment and trade policy that favors cleaner industrial material imports. While most of Evergreen Collaborative’s work is focused on US stakeholders, markets, and policies, we think that these efforts, when combined with trade policies such as a carbon border adjustment mechanism, can have a global impact. This falls within our philanthropic strategy of decarbonizing heavy industry. Please see Giving Green’s deep dive report for more information, including risks and potential co-benefits, recommended sub-strategies, theory of change, funding need, and key uncertainties. Last updated: October 2024 What is Evergreen Collaborative? Evergreen Collaborative is a US-based climate policy advocacy group that was founded by former staffers of Washington State Governor Jay Inslee’s 2020 presidential campaign. Since its founding, Evergreen has focused its efforts on supporting policies that aim to power the economy with 100% clean energy, invest in jobs, support environmental justice, transition the US from fossil fuels, and influence US leadership to confront climate change. Building on its strong track record of influencing federal legislation such as the Inflation Reduction Act, Evergreen has expanded its advocacy efforts to federal regulatory agencies and state policy. Why are we funding Evergreen Collaborative, and how could it help reduce emissions? Evergreen Collaborative is building its work on industrial decarbonization, leveraging its expertise and experience to target key policy, legal, and regulatory mechanisms. We think this multi-faceted approach could be highly effective in decarbonizing heavy industry production in the US. Its ongoing and future work includes: Promoting robust and equitable trade policy : Evergreen Collaborative is supporting legislative efforts toward a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), a tax on imports based on carbon intensity intended to increase the competitiveness of clean, domestic industrial production and incentivize decarbonization internationally. Evergreen Collaborative emphasizes the need to complement trade policy with initiatives to protect LMICS, such as strong international finance commitments, robust technology transfer, and exemptions for least developing countries and small island developing states. Pushing for increased environmental regulations and enforcement : Through the Clean Air Act, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can regulate air pollution from industrial sources. Evergreen Collaborative is bringing attention to the fact that EPA has not updated its rules for decades and is pushing the agency to take specific action on updating New Source Performance Standards to include greenhouse gas emissions. Advancing market shaping efforts : The Buy Clean initiative, a federal procurement effort for low-carbon materials such as steel, cement, asphalt, and glass, includes commitments from 12 leading states. Evergreen Collaborative is working to expand and strengthen state programs to amplify the effectiveness of these federal-state partnerships. In addition, Evergreen Collaborative is advocating for a federal advance market commitment that may be more suitable than procurement for emerging clean technologies and materials. Advocating for new and increased federal funding for industrial decarbonization: Evergreen Collaborative advocates for increased funding for existing programs such as the Department of Energy’s Industrial Demonstration Program and the Buy Clean initiative mentioned above. In addition, Evergreen Collaborative is promoting the adoption of a performance tax credit to subsidize clean industrial products such as low-carbon cement and steel. Why do we think Evergreen Collaborative will use this funding well? We think Evergreen Collaborative’s strong track record, legal and policy expertise, network, and partnerships will enable it to effectively drive critical industrial decarbonization efforts domestically that could have a significant impact beyond US borders. For more on the difference between the grantees of the Giving Green Fund and our Top Nonprofits, please see this blog post on the Giving Green Fund. Evergreen has 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) entities. As Giving Green is part of IDinsight, which is itself a charitable, tax-exempt organization, we are only offering an opinion on the charitable activities of its 501(c)(3) arm, Evergreen Collaborative, and not on its 501(c)(4) entity, Evergreen Action. This is a nonpartisan analysis (study or research) and is provided for educational purposes.

Biochar // BACK Please see our most updated research on biochar at this new link.

Carbon Removal Standards Initiative // BACK Overview The Giving Green Fund plans to award a grant to the Carbon Removal Standards Initiative (CRSI), a US-based initiative fiscally sponsored by the nonprofit Carbon180. This is one of a series of ecosystem grants supporting foundational work to unlock innovative policy approaches for durable CDR demand. CRSI falls within our philanthropic strategy of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) . Please see Giving Green’s deep dive report on CDR for more information, including risks and potential co-benefits, recommended sub-strategies, theory of change, funding need, and key uncertainties. Last updated: October 2024 What is the Carbon Removal Standards Initiative (CRSI)? The Carbon Removal Standards Initiative (CRSI) was launched in 2024 to provide technical assistance to NGOs and policymakers on CDR quantification standards applicable across industries and jurisdictions. Foundational to CRSI’s mission is the belief that long-term demand for CDR services will be driven by policy. To achieve gigaton scale, CDR must be embedded across industries and policy mechanisms, necessitating context-driven quantification standards. What are we funding at CRSI, and how could it help scale demand for CDR? We are funding CRSI to support its ongoing and future work on developing and shaping standards to match the needs and opportunities of a diverse array of policy vehicles . Given that current demand is driven by credit-based carbon markets, especially the voluntary market, the development of requisite standards and quantification frameworks has largely reflected the needs and the structures of corporations currently buying carbon removal credits. However, these tools may not be directly transferable or applicable to more policy-driven approaches, and creating fit-for-purpose standards will help to unlock demand outside of existing market regimes. CRSI’s portfolio of ongoing and planned projects includes: Learning from industry case studies : CRSI is studying how standards development happened in other emerging technology areas, e.g., bioinformatics, soil carbon, USDA organic, telecom, and low-carbon construction materials, to determine relevant successes and failure modes and inform the organization’s strategy and tactics for the next one to three years. Expanding viable policy contexts for enhanced rock weathering (ERW) : CRSI is working to create a framework for jurisdictional-level monitoring of carbon removal through ERW on agricultural lands to fit pay-for-practice subsidies. The existing quantification standards were developed for per-ton attribution of removal to a specific supplier; tailoring standards for other contexts could significantly reduce cost and accelerate the speed of deployment. Analyzing the impact of differing methodologies on net removal quantification and improving consistency across jurisdictions: CRSI plans to conduct a comparative analysis of methodologies to assess differences in boundary setting and net removal quantification. For example, it will analyze the impact of different energy accounting methodologies embedded in direct air capture (DAC) regulations across jurisdictions. Given the difficulty of intra- and inter-governmental coordination on methodology development, CRSI’s work will support improved coordination and reduced barriers to commercialization. Increasing transparency of data and information : Increased transparency and accessibility of data and information underpinning CDR standards and research at large will improve rigor, build trust, and accelerate deployment. CRSI plans to identify copyright and IP barriers to accessing CDR standards and develop recommendations to eliminate these barriers and improve access. Why do we think CRSI will use this funding well? Given that CRSI launched in 2024, we do not have a track record to assess. However, we are excited by its choice to focus on an impact area that we think holds high potential for impact yet remains underexplored, the experience of its leadership, and its portfolio of ongoing and planned projects. Giving Green believes that additional climate donations are likely to be most impactful when directed to our top nonprofits. For a number of reasons , we may choose to recommend grants to other organizations for work that we believe is at least as impactful as grants to our top recommendations. We are highlighting this grant to offer transparency to donors to the Giving Green Fund as well as to provide a resource for donors who are particularly interested in this impact strategy. This is a nonpartisan analysis (study or research) and is provided for educational purposes.

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