Search Results

We are thrilled to announce that two of Giving Green’s proposals aimed at incentivizing the development of green steel and green aluminum won the first phase of a new innovation challenge. Our proposals were among the 39 entries that won Phase I of the inaugural Market Shaping Accelerator Innovation Challenge 2023 at the University of Chicago. The winning proposals, selected from a total of 186 submissions, will receive prizes of $4,000 each. The Market Shaping Accelerator (MSA) at University of Chicago was set up to explore market-shaping mechanisms that could spur innovation to solve global challenges. Specifically, the accelerator’s inaugural innovation challenge will award up to $2 million in total prizes for ideas that use “pull mechanisms” to spark innovation in climate change, as well as biosecurity and pandemic preparedness. What is a pull mechanism? Pull mechanisms are policy tools that encourage private sectors to invest in research and development for particular areas and bring those solutions to market. Unlike push mechanisms, which operate on a supply-driven approach by providing funding to stimulate innovation, pull mechanisms adopt a demand-driven approach and incentivize successful solutions. “These mechanisms ‘pull’ innovation by creating a demand for a specific product or service, which drives private sector investment and efforts towards developing and delivering that product or technological solution,” according to the accelerator. What is an advance market commitment? One example of a pull mechanism is an advance market commitment (AMC). Under an AMC, a purchaser commits to buying a product or service at a specified price and quantity once it becomes available. This commitment creates an “advance market” for the product, enticing innovators to invest in research and development to meet the demand. Giving Green is no stranger to AMCs. One of our top recommendations for businesses is Frontier, an advance market commitment that supports and accelerates the development and deployment of carbon removal technologies. Our evaluation of Frontier’s advance market commitment model found that it provides an accessible, anticipatory investment toward enabling future net-zero pledges by supporting the growth and development of a carbon removal market. It is one of Giving Green’s catalytic carbon removal investment recommendations for businesses. Why focus on heavy industry decarbonization? Heavy industries—such as steel, cement, fertilizers, and aluminum—are fundamental to modern society. They are also substantial contributors to climate change, accounting for one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions. The industrial sector is among the most difficult to decarbonize, while the demand for industrial products will only increase. There are no known substitutes for many of the sector’s products, so it is imperative that the emissions intensity of production substantially decrease as quickly as possible. In other words, the market for heavy industry products is large and is getting larger. To meet climate goals, we need to pave the way for market conditions to eventually favor green industrial products. Green aluminum The first of Giving Giving’s two entries looks at addressing market failures in green aluminum. It is estimated that the aluminum industry generated about 1.1 billion tons of CO2e emissions in 2018, and demand is projected to increase 80% by 2050. The bulk of the emissions from aluminum production come from refining, anode production, and smelting. Full decarbonization will require a suite of technological interventions—such as green hydrogen, inert anodes, mechanical vapor recompression, as well as carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS)—but the majority of emissions can be reduced through switching to fossil-free electricity. At present, the takeup of greener alternatives is largely voluntary given the “green premium” associated with these products. In the absence of mandates or regulations, industries are unlikely to assume the costs needed to substantially reduce emissions. This is a market failure that we believe pull mechanisms could help address. We see the transportation industry as a strong candidate to support this pull mechanism because of its outsized influence over the aluminum market. As the transportation industry begins to seriously account for its Scope 3 emissions, it will have a vested interest in reducing the emissions tied to aluminum production. In addition, the energy transition is projected to increase aluminum demand for various applications. For example, the Aluminium Association, an industry body, estimated that by 2026 the aluminum required for a single vehicle will increase by 12% to accommodate hybrid and EV designs. It is our impression that a large purchase commitment from even just a few companies in the automobile or aviation sector could substantially catalyze green aluminum. Low-carbon steel Our second entry considers market-based opportunities to accelerate the uptake of green steel. Steelmaking is highly pollution-intensive, producing, on average, 1.85 tons of CO2 for each ton of steel produced. And similar to the rising demand for aluminum, demand for steel is expected to rise by 30% by 2050. Creating green steel is technologically possible; the main challenge is making it commercially viable. While refinements in the technology are still required before scaling up the production of green steel, the primary barrier to widespread adoption is costs. In the commodity market, commercial purchasers have no incentives to purchase a greener steel product at a premium price. This creates a vicious cycle that does not encourage researchers and firms to invest in creating cleaner technology. We believe a pull mechanism can help to correct this market failure, and it is our impression that setting up an advance market commitment in the steel industry is particularly attractive compared to other sectors for several reasons. Firstly, the steel industry is a major contributor to global emissions, making it a high-impact target for decarbonization. Secondly, unlike the electricity and transport sectors where green alternatives are relatively cost competitive, the green premium associated with cleaner steel production is in more need of interventions like an AMC to catalyze the market. Moreover, decarbonizing steel through an AMC could yield positive spillover effects for tackling other climate challenges. Experts have found that green steel production could spur the growth of a green hydrogen industry. This symbiotic relationship would see the steel industry becoming a significant consumer and early adopter of hydrogen generated from 100% renewable sources. The development of the green hydrogen industry could then accelerate the decarbonization efforts in other sectors, such as agriculture—via the use of low-carbon fertilizers like green ammonia produced using green hydrogen—and international shipping—by switching from traditional shipping fuels to hydrogen-derived fuels like ammonia or methanol. Phase II of the MSA Innovation Challenge 2023 As we look ahead, a subset of the 39 winners from Phase I of the challenge will advance to the second phase, where the accelerator will support the teams to develop detailed proposals and turn their ideas into fully worked up contracts. We congratulate team members Dr. Lucia Simonelli, Jack Rafferty and Dr. Dan Stein who led the winning proposals. We look forward to updating Giving Green’s supporters on the next steps of this challenge.

We're grateful to have reached many new audiences in 2022 with our high-impact climate giving research. Our core product, our public recommendations, was featured in a variety of pieces about effective climate action: Why climate charities can deliver the most charitable bang for the buck - Michael Thomas, Quartz Behind nearly every climate policy, it turns out, was a nonprofit or coalition of nonprofits... Funding organizations like these is one of the most effective ways to address climate change. And it’s up to donors, big and small, to support these nonprofits. While it might not seem like a $100 or $1,000 donation can make a difference, scrappy climate nonprofits have already shown how they can leverage small amounts of money to enact national or even global changes. And plenty of such organizations exist today. From my own research, I estimated for every dollar donated to non-profits like Evergreen Action, Rewiring America, and WE ACT for Environmental Justice, roughly one ton of greenhouse gas emissions are abated in the US policy action. You can see similar recommendations for organizations such as Clean Air Task Force from GivingGreen. Donate to charity by June 30 and your money works twice — helping others and your tax return - Martin Gould, ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) News If you're looking to have a big impact on the world, it's worth using an analytical mindset, similar to the approach we might take to our own finances. How can we get the biggest bang for our donation buck?... For the environment, there's Giving Green, which selects evidence-based methods of fighting climate change. Worried About the Climate? Join the Club—Literally. - Emma Marris, The New Republic But as the climate crisis accelerates, more and more people are recognizing voluntary individual behavior changes alone simply cannot stop climate change. Collective action, by contrast, can work. But many people are going to need help figuring out where to start. And while there are plenty of guides for “going green” as a consumer, there’s little advice available for those who want to engage as citizens... Giving Green, an initiative from the data and research nonprofit IDInsight, is one example of a group that’s now focusing on guiding people to effective actions. The team of “impact evaluation” experts recommends a small handful of organizations in four areas: investments, carbon offsets, U.S. policy, and Australian policy. Want to fight climate change effectively? Here’s where to donate your money. - Sigal Samuel, Vox Arguably the best move is to donate not to an individual charity, but to a fund — like the Founders Pledge Climate Change Fund or the Giving Green Fund. Experts at those groups pool together donor money and give it out to the charities they deem most effective, right when extra funding is most needed. That can mean making time-sensitive grants to promote the writing of an important report, or stepping in when a charity becomes acutely funding-constrained. Most importantly, donating to a fund means you can give to opportunities that small individual donors normally can’t give to — like the multi-year projects in China, India, Indonesia, Korea, and Japan that Founders Pledge is incubating, for instance. That’s appealing because these countries are philanthropically neglected even though they’re high-emitting. Funneling money to projects there, rather than in the US, may be a way for you to supercharge your impact. As critiques of "net-zero" have grown, we highlighted our work with businesses pursuing higher-impact climate strategies: Climate impact beyond carbon offsets - Mark Nicholls, Energy Monitor Investment in policy advocacy can be significantly more impactful that simply buying offsets. “Climate change is a systemic problem,” said Emily Thai, manager of Giving Green, a US-based initiative that aims to identify the most impactful climate action projects. “That means you have to be investing in policy change or technology change, or a combination thereof.” “This stuff isn't always measurable [and] it might not always work,” she told the webinar. However, she said that Giving Green has undertaken “some internal cost effectiveness analyses” which found that investments in activist groups, think tanks and policymaking are “at least an order of magnitude more impactful than your best carbon avoidance or removal credits per dollar”. We must fundamentally rethink “net-zero” climate plans. Here are six ways. - James Temple, MIT Technology Review But the process can quickly hit limits because it’s incredibly difficult for most companies in most industries to fully eliminate emissions today, says Dan Stein, chief economist at IDinsight and director of Giving Green, which evaluates the reliability of carbon removal and offset efforts and advises companies on climate programs... Robust government policies can bring about systemic change across industries far faster than any voluntary carbon pledges, says Lucia Simonelli, senior climate researcher for Giving Green. And taking a progressive stance on climate policies can actually work in a company’s self-interest. Our recommendations for philanthropists were shared on the Center for Effective Philanthropy's blog: Climate Philanthropy in a New Policy Landscape - Dan Stein, Center for Effective Philanthropy The dust is finally starting to settle after a wild roller-coaster of a ride for U.S. climate policy. When all is said and done, three bills with major climate implications (IIJA, CHIPS, IRA) have passed the 117th Congress. In a previous post on this blog, I argued that the most impactful philanthropic lever for donors looking to fight climate change was to push for systemic change in policy and technology. These bills (fueled in part by major philanthropic efforts) represent a major victory, and a critical step in the right direction toward the systems change that we need. But after such a major accomplishment, what’s next? There is still a lot of work to be done, and there are more opportunities for smart climate philanthropy than ever before. At my organization Giving Green, we’ve been working to identify the most high-leverage philanthropic opportunities in this new landscape. Below are four strategies we think have particular promise.

Welcome to the world of climate change charities, where impactful initiatives are as diverse as the challenges they aim to address. At Giving Green, we often encounter the question: "What are the best climate change charities?" Nevertheless, we refrain from the phrase “best charities” for two main reasons. First, given that almost every activity we do today generates emissions, we need climate action on all fronts. “Everything, everywhere, all at once” was the rallying call by UN Secretary-General António Guterres at the launch of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report in March. Describing organizations as “the best” does not capture the diversity of approaches required to address the multifaceted challenges of climate change. Secondly, we find it relatively more difficult to assess the effectiveness of specific organizations than that of broader climate strategies. As part of our five-step research process, we start by conducting a broader landscape analysis to identify effective climate strategies, before diving into each strategy to assess organizations that work on the strategy. When comparing impact strategies, we might find research articles, insights from experienced experts, and strong cost comparisons. At the organizational level, however, the distinctions between shortlisted groups might be minor or hard to evaluate. This can occur when these groups adopt similar methods. Also, our final recommendations of organizations often rely on qualitative measures, such as leadership assessment, instead of high-confidence, quantitative comparisons. Humility, truth-seeking, and transparency are some of the guiding values of Giving Green. Instead of labeling our recommendations as the “best climate change charities,” we use a combination of metrics and heuristics to inform our search for “best bets”: climate impact strategies and initiatives that we believe are pulling the biggest levers when it comes to tackling climate change at speed and scale. Having reviewed hundreds of climate initiatives over the course of three years, we have identified several shared features among our top recommendations. 5 features of effective climate change nonprofits 1. They advocate for systemic change Dr. Dan Stein, founder of Giving Green, wrote in a blog for the Center for Effective Philanthropy: “It is impossible to win the fight against climate change by blanketing the world with little projects.” To create change everywhere all at once, and create change that lasts, we need to change the system. We encourage donors to look for organizations that change the laws, norms, and systems that perpetuate unsustainable emissions. In practice, this means finding climate change charities that advocate for effective climate policy and support climate technology development. An example in this respect is Clean Air Task Force (CATF), recommended by Giving Green in 2020, 2021, and 2022. In terms of policy advocacy, it boasts an impressive track record in shaping and ensuring the passage of large-scale policies and agreements, such as the Inflation Reduction Act and Global Methane Pledge. On technology development, CATF is a staunch supporter of the global scale-up of emerging technologies, such as carbon capture and zero-carbon liquid fuels. Read more about Giving Green’s evaluation of Clean Air Task Force. 2. They turn evidence into action In the face of a deepening climate crisis, it is vital for nonprofits to translate research into practical steps that drive real-world impact. We encourage climate donors to seek out nonprofits that use rigorous science to inform climate strategies, and then turn those strategies into practice. At Giving Green, we look for a clear track record of success and/or a plausible theory of change for future success. The Good Food Institute (GFI), one of Giving Green’s top recommendations in 2022, works on making alternative proteins competitive with conventional proteins, which we believe could reduce livestock consumption. In our food-sector emissions report, we found that livestock consumption plays an outsized role in food-sector emissions, which account for 23% to 42% of global greenhouse gas emissions. As part of GFI’s science workstream, it identifies research gaps, technological needs, and investment priorities across the alternative protein space. It then fills these gaps by funding catalytic research projects, while supporting researchers in translating their work into commercial ventures. Read Giving Green’s evaluation of the Good Food Institute. 3. They are nimble The climate landscape is constantly changing. Nimble teams can pivot quickly, even as the winds around them shift. One of Giving Green’s top recommendations that carefully times its policy work to the current political landscape is Evergreen Collaborative, founded by former staffers of Washington State Governor Jay Inslee’s 2020 presidential campaign. For example, when President Joseph Biden won the White House and it seemed likely that Democrats would lose the Senate, Evergreen Collaborative released a list of President Biden’s proposed executive orders for combating climate change within days of the final election results. Evergreen Collaborative compiled these executive orders as a means to advocate for climate action outside of legislation. Additionally, Evergreen Collaborative developed lists of five key action items 21 different government agencies should each take on climate as the names of each agency’s potential appointees were released to the public. This was a gap in climate advocacy that other environmental groups had not filled. After successfully advocating for many pieces of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the largest piece of climate legislation in US history, Evergreen Collaborative is now moving away from legislative advocacy and devoting more resources towards implementation, executive actions, and state-level work. The organization has put together comprehensive resources to help federal agencies, states, local communities, and other stakeholders take full advantage of the IRA. Read Giving Green’s evaluation of Evergreen Collaborative. 4. They work in a neglected space Is there a sector that is responsible for large and/or growing greenhouse gas emissions, but receives a relatively small share of philanthropic funding? This is one of the first questions we ask during our five-step research process. For example, in our report on decarbonizing heavy industry, we found that efforts to decarbonize heavy industry—which accounts for around one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions—might be relatively underfunded due to perceptions of low feasibility. We believe there are relatively high-leverage opportunities to effect business and government spending and decision-making that can productively absorb additional philanthropic funding. A new organization, Industrious Labs, has stepped up to address this need. Publicly launched in October 2022, it aims to strategically coordinate efforts to decarbonize heavy industry. It teams up with partner organizations to urge businesses to commit to low-carbon practices. It also pushes governments for regulations and public funding to accelerate the transition. We recommend Industrious Labs as one of our top climate nonprofits because it is focused on a highly neglected area, its leadership has a track record of success, and we think its comprehensive industry-specific strategies will pull on the right levers to drive industry’s transition. We also think Industrious Labs has substantial growth potential. Read Giving Green’s evaluation of Industrious Labs. 5. They have experts in the field We look for climate change charities with in-house technical expertise and go-to domain experts. For example, one of our newer recommendations, Good Energy Collective (GEC), is a nonprofit which advocates for progressive policies that support advanced reactor deployment. Founded in 2020, this new organization has a relatively short track record. However, we found that its team has several veterans in nuclear policy who have had previous policy wins outside of GEC. For example, Jackie Toth, GEC’s deputy director, previously worked as an Advisor for Policy and Content for Third Way’s Climate and Energy Program. According to GEC, she was active in the US federal budget appropriation process while at Third Way and has applied a similar strategy at GEC. More recently in July, Toth testified at a US House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on several bills. She emphasized the need to increase the public’s ability to learn from and engage with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as their licensing activities accelerate. Read Giving Green’s evaluation of Good Energy Collective. Climate is complex. Giving doesn’t have to be. ​ Donating to climate change nonprofits is one of the most accessible climate actions that an individual can take. Climate donations can be an effective way to connect micro actions with macro change, especially when given to organizations that advocate for systemic change. However, sifting through a wide range of options and pinpointing impactful initiatives requires time and expertise. This is why we created Giving Green. Our team of researchers spend thousands of hours each year assessing the ever-changing climate landscape and identifying places where your donations will have higher leverage. We do not believe that there are “best charities.” We do believe, however, that there are some organizations where your donations can be more strongly felt. To learn more about the other metrics and heuristic that we use to identify high-impact climate impact strategies and initiatives, read the detailed documentation of our research process. And while you are here, check out our list of evidence-based, cost-effective, and high-leverage climate change nonprofits. We find high-impact climate initiatives; you can turbocharge them.

Amid the growing chorus for more sustainable business practices, intentions are now standing in the glare of scrutiny. More than one third of the world’s largest companies have now committed to achieving net zero, according to Accenture. Yet, as these climate declarations gain momentum, a litmus test of good faith, viability, and adherence to rigorous standards is becoming increasingly common. We started Giving Green three years ago to provide evidence-based climate giving recommendations for individuals and foundations. Along the way, we have heard from many businesses that are long on the desire to make a positive impact on the planet, but short on practical and effective ways to reduce emissions. The problem? It is our impression that net-zero approaches are generally out of reach for most businesses at present. The challenges are twofold. Why some business climate strategies fall short First, our research found that many businesses, especially small and medium enterprises, find it difficult to reduce all or even much of their emissions at present. This is due to systemic issues such as reliance on the grid and complex supply chain factors. Take the example of a small digital startup for which most emissions come from cloud computing and occasional employee travel. Aside from reducing travel, direct emissions reductions would be difficult without broader systemic change in the power and transportation sectors. This emissions-reduction ceiling results in businesses looking to carbon offsets to balance out their footprint. As reported in recent media investigations over and over again, the efficacy of many offset projects is highly uncertain. Giving Green’s assessment of the voluntary carbon market also shows that it is extremely rare for a marketed credit to truly represent its advertised amount of emissions avoidance or removal. How to maximize the impact of corporate climate action Instead of assuming that conventional frameworks are optimal, we encourage businesses to explore the following question: given a set of available resources, how can a business maximize its climate impact? This fresh perspective allows for nuance, innovation, and the acknowledgment that, in certain situations, carbon accounting on paper may limit the real-world impact of a company’s climate action. While each company will inevitably need to confront constraints in its climate strategy, it can also weave in its unique set of resources and opportunities. To highlight the exciting potential of this “beyond net zero” approach, we convened a panel of four forward-looking companies that have gone beyond their own value chain to maximize their climate impact. 4 examples of higher-impact business climate strategies Microsoft The genesis of Microsoft's beyond-net-zero climate strategy dates back to 2012 when it became carbon neutral. The same year, the firm launched a first-of-a-kind carbon fee, an internal tax to set aside certain amounts of money for climate mitigation. The tech giant started off by purchasing renewable energy credits, which included offset avoidance credits, but it quickly realized that offsetting or avoiding was not enough. “We think those who can do more should,” said Annie Guo, senior program manager of carbon removal at Microsoft, during the webinar. Similar to Giving Green’s own motivating question, Guo said Microsoft asked itself, “If Microsoft were to set aside some resources, what form would that take and what should we target?” Part of its pathway is to reduce over half of its emissions and remove the rest, said Guo, adding that the firm’s removal portfolio includes both nature-based and engineered solutions for balance. It also seeks to create markets around medium-to-high-durability solutions. Additionally, one of Giving Green’s recommendations for businesses is to contribute to or start a climate action fund, such as the Giving Green Fund, to allocate resources across an array of climate mitigation initiatives. Microsoft did exactly that. Its Climate Innovation Fund acts as the venture capital arm of the firm’s sustainability team, investing in a portfolio of decarbonization projects. Frontier Another of Giving Green’s recommendations for businesses is to support technological innovation. While net-zero goals are impossible today, we believe supporting technologies that make net zero possible in the future is among the most effective ways to contribute directly to robust climate action. We encourage companies to support emerging climate technologies in sectors relevant to their own operations and/or to promote climate innovation more broadly. As an example, some companies are contributing to the development and scaling of carbon removal technologies. To achieve climate goals, carbon removal will be needed in addition to rapid emissions reductions, said Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist. This is to account for residual emissions from hard-to-abate sectors, as well as global temperature overshoot. Hausfather highlighted the importance of permanence in carbon removal. He pointed out that low-cost carbon offsets or temporary removals used by companies to achieve net-zero claims rarely fully neutralize the emissions of fossil fuels. “It’s causing a bit of a realization that we need to not just maximize tons on paper, but we need to maximize the actual real world impact of the dollars we spend on climate,” said Hausfather of recent investigations into “phantom carbon offsets”. Hausfather now leads climate research at Frontier, an advance market commitment (AMC) intended to support and accelerate the development and deployment of carbon removal technologies. Created by Stripe and founding firms like Alphabet, Shopify, Meta, and McKinsey & Company, the scheme now boasts Autodesk, JP Morgan Chase & Co., H&M Group and Workaday among its partners. Giving Green’s evaluation of Frontier’s advance market commitment model found that it provides an accessible, anticipatory investment toward enabling future net-zero pledges by supporting the growth and development of a carbon removal market. It is one of Giving Green’s catalytic carbon removal investment recommendations for businesses. Google In 2007, Google became carbon neutral, initially through the purchase of high-quality carbon offsets, then through direct purchase of renewable energy via power purchase agreements. Since 2017, the firm has matched 100% of its annual electricity use with renewable energy purchases. “When we achieved our 100% annual matching goal, we saw it as an important milestone. But we recognized that 100% annual volumetric matching is not the same as using carbon-free electricity everywhere and at all times,” said Devon Swezey with Google’s global energy markets and policy team. A study by Princeton’s Zero Lab confirms this, concluding that 24/7 carbon-free energy procurement has a higher impact on emissions reduction and power sector transformation than the more common approach of offsetting fossil energy consumption through renewable energy purchases. Climate experts are calling for companies to move from annual matching to matching more of their demand on an hourly basis, which will reduce grid electricity emissions, lead to faster retirement of fossil fuels, and accelerate the commercialization of advanced clean technologies. Google is pursuing this goal through three tracks. First, the firm is set to buy more and different types of clean energy. Secondly, it seeks to use its investment and purchasing power to commercialize advanced technologies such as geothermal. Thirdly, at the ecosystem level, it aims to enable more consumers to purchase 24/7 carbon-free energy, as well as advocate for policies that support grid decarbonization. Mapbox With 690 employees, Mapbox, a provider of custom online maps, was the smallest company among our panel. Its climate strategy provides a unique case study for how small-to-medium enterprises can also influence systemic change through corporate climate action. “Due to size and the nature of our business, we do have a relatively small corporate carbon footprint, but that doesn't mean we deprioritize our climate commitments,” said Marena Smith, manager of Mapbox’s social impact team. “In fact we’ve used that as motivation to find ways to go further with our climate commitments.” Giving Green encourages companies to engage in policy, as we believe that the private sector stands to benefit from moving beyond obstruction or inaction toward proactively advocating for robust climate policy. For companies that do not have a direct policy advocacy arm, an indirect but arguably more accessible way is to donate to highly effective organizations working on climate policy advocacy. Building on Giving Green’s recommendations, Mapbox has donated to Clean Air Task Force, which has an impressive track record of influencing large-scale policies and agreements such as the Inflation Reduction Act and Global Methane Pledge. When it comes to carbon credits, Mapbox’s purchases were from high-quality offset projects such as refrigerant destruction through Tradewater. These purchases were then supplemented by investment in durable carbon removal. In addition to dedicated climate investment, Mapbox has evolved to leverage its products and customers to further scale its impact. For example, as a mapping and navigation platform company, Mapbox works with logistics and delivery companies to enhance efficient fleet usage, reducing customers’ emissions through the use of Mapbox technology. “We are leaning into how our customer base and our products can have an outsized impact on emissions, far beyond what our corporate carbon footprint would be,” said Smith. An actionable guide to effective corporate climate action A growing number of companies like the ones featured in our panel are going beyond net zero: leveraging their resources innovatively to more deeply influence climate progress. Your company can be one of them. Giving Green has a comprehensive guide for businesses to design effective business climate strategy and maximize the impact of corporate climate action. Our white paper proposes four evidence-backed, actionable climate strategies, followed by concrete recommendations on how companies can go beyond their own carbon footprint to support policy change, technological innovation, carbon removal, and more. We offer free 1:1 consultations to businesses large and small. Say hello here.

Giving Green is excited to announce a new partnership with Effective Altruism Australia (EAA) on the launch of their new climate fund: the EAA Environment Fund. This fund will make it easier for Australians to make tax-efficient donations to highly impactful climate charities. Effective Altruism Australia is a non-profit organization that promotes the use of evidence and reason to do good. The organization works to identify and support the most effective ways to improve the world, and this new fund marks the expansion of their work to include charities which work to address climate change. The new climate fund will be open to donations from individuals, businesses, and foundations in Australia, and will support a portfolio of high impact climate charities. By making it easier for Australians to support highly effective climate charities, the fund will help Australians to reduce emissions and accelerate the transition to a cleaner future. Giving Green has previously released Australia-specific recommendations to advise Australians on how to fight climate change with their donations in an effective, evidence-based way. However, until now Australians have been unable to make tax deductible donations to Giving Green’s top recommended charities, or to international climate charities that are not registered in Australia. This new fund aims to streamline tax-efficient donations and offer donors more freedom to support a wider variety of high impact climate charities. "We're delighted to partner with Giving Green to launch this new climate fund," said Michael Noetel, director of Effective Altruism Australia. "This fund will make it easier for Australians to support highly effective climate charities and make a real difference in the fight against climate change." All donations to the new EAA environment fund are tax-deductible to Australian donors and go directly to high impact charities. Note: EAA and EAAE are separate legal entities. Effective Altruism Australia is a registered charity, ABN: 87608863467 Effective Altruism Australia Environment is a registered charity, ABN 57659447417

The Giving Green team is pleased to publish our first annual report, covering our work and impact in 2022 and cumulatively, and some of our plans for 2023 and beyond.

How individuals can harness evidence to fight climate change, effectively You have read the news reports about record-breaking extreme temperatures. You have seen pictures of skies turned yellow by wildfire smoke. You have heard stories about prolonged droughts wreaking havoc on everyday life and the ecosystem. The question on many of our minds is: what can we do about climate change? What can I do about climate change? We had the same questions. So we started Giving Green. Credit: Raphael Pouget / Climate Visuals Countdown Not all climate actions are equal There is no shortage of guidance on climate action, from making lifestyle changes to purchasing carbon offsets. However, our research identified three problems that prevent people from taking effective actions to fight climate change. 1. Many climate call-to-actions are not actionable The biggest lever in the climate fight is to push for systemic change in policy and technology. But these system-level call-to-actions are not always actionable on an individual level. How can an average person “decarbonize the grid” or “start an agricultural revolution”? 2. Many climate actions are ineffective When climate actions do take place on the ground, not all of them are based on the best available scientific evidence. Studies have shown that some high-profile, well-meaning initiatives—such as the Clean Development Mechanism and decades of expensive tree-planting programs in India—have been major disappointments. Confidence in the effectiveness of climate actions is also low among those who fund them. According to a recent report by the Center for Effective Philanthropy, only 11% of climate funders rated their own foundation’s strategy for addressing climate change as very effective. A paltry 4% said that efforts by philanthropic foundations, broadly, are very effective. 3. Most individuals lack access to evidence-based climate advice While billionaire philanthropists and large companies tend to have in-house expertise, many organizations and almost all individuals do not have easy access to the evidence they need to direct their resources effectively. Maximizing the impact of climate actions How can an individual overcome these headwinds and identify effective ways to fight climate change? Our answer: support evidence-based, cost-effective, and high-leverage policy advocacy organizations that change the norms, systems, and laws that shape greenhouse gas emissions. There are many ways to contribute to systemic change, from joining a social movement to working in governments. We focus on individual giving and philanthropy because we believe in the flexibility and risk-taking of philanthropic capital. It is best suited to support less measurable initiatives that can bring out grand, systemic change. And if you think you need to be a millionaire to give effectively, think again. When giving to high-impact initiatives, every dollar can make a difference. At Giving Green, we spend thousands of hours of research every year finding climate organizations that maximize the impact of your climate donations. We use a combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies—such as expert interviews, literature reviews, and cost-effectiveness analyses—to filter through the miscellany of climate initiatives. Our research over the past three years led us to strongly believe that the most bang for your buck in climate giving comes from funding organizations working to make systemic change in policy and technology. For example, heavy industries like steel and cement are the literal building blocks of the global economy. They also account for one-third of emissions, but have received very little attention from government or philanthropy. Industrious Labs, one of our top climate nonprofits recommendations for 2022, is a new organization dedicated to helping global heavy industry go green. In collaboration with partner organizations, Industrious Labs advocates to corporations to make low-carbon commitments, and applies legal and political pressure to governments to ensure there is regulation and public funding to accelerate the transition to a cleaner industrial sector. We are excited about Industrious Labs’ potential for heavy industry decarbonization because it is focused on a highly neglected area, its leadership has a track record of success, and we think its comprehensive industry-specific strategies will pull on the right levers to drive heavy industries’ transition. But what about buying carbon offsets? Many people come to Giving Green looking to purchase carbon offsets to offset their personal carbon footprints. While we welcome the interest in making an impact, numerous recent investigations into “junk carbon offsets” and “worthless carbon offsets” have made it clear that many of these initiatives do not deliver their promised climate impact. At Giving Green, we believe in decarbonizing the future, not just offsetting the past. One tool from our evaluation toolkit—cost-effectiveness analysis—also lends this argument some quantitative credence. As an example, we developed a model to predict emissions reductions resulting from various policies under consideration in the United States between 2021 and 2022. Many of these policies were eventually included in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. We then tried to determine the impact of different climate organizations on the inclusion of specific laws in the bill, as well as the likelihood of passing a climate-related legislation. The findings were remarkably insightful. Even when we applied conservative assumptions in our model, such as the level of influence exerted by certain organizations, advocacy groups appeared to be considerably more cost-effective than the most effective offsets available. We do, however, recommend a few high-quality carbon offset providers. These recommendations are meant for businesses that, in addition to reducing emissions in their own operations, are offsetting hard-to-abate emissions as part of a business net-zero commitment. Taking climate action, effectively If you are an individual or a foundation, we recommend donating to our top recommendations for climate nonprofits. These are deeply researched, carefully vetted climate giving opportunities in policy advocacy that can have a huge potential for impact. If you are a business, read Giving Green’s comprehensive corporate climate strategy that helps you avoid corporate greenwashing and maximize real climate impact, including setting up a climate action fund to support highly impactful climate initiatives. If you find our research helpful, consider supporting Giving Green’s operations. Every $1 donated to Giving Green’s research and operations has been converted into $8 of support for high-impact climate initiatives.

Carbon neutrality goals can be expensive, ineffective, and even impossible. Here’s how we think businesses can achieve maximum climate impact. Lucia Simonelli, PhD, & Dan Stein, PhD August 08, 2022 Note: This blog post was the precursor to our full white paper on corporate climate action, including a step-by-step guide to elevating your business's climate action. Download the full white paper here. Pressure is mounting for businesses to take climate action, but the question of how they should take action is far from obvious. Net-zero frameworks have become the convention, and consequently, resources are channeled toward greenhouse gas inventories, methods to demonstrate emissions reductions, and cursory accounting for unabated emissions. But there is growing skepticism over whether or not such a focus on hastily claiming neutrality is the highest-impact strategy. Emphasis on ton-ton accounting (which is necessary for companies to claim they are “carbon neutral” or “net-zero”) has resulted in an over-reliance on low-quality offsets and encouraged the practice of using avoided emissions credits as neutralizing factors in climate math. While credible resources do exist to rigorously guide corporations to net-zero, like the Science Based Target Initiative (SBTi), implementation of this guidance remains impractical for many. In particular, while emissions reductions should undoubtedly be prioritized when possible, substantial reductions will require systemic change and robust policy – well beyond the reach of most businesses. We at Giving Green encourage companies to move away from immediate neutrality goals and to instead consider options that maximize climate impact. Given that these approaches are varied and relatively new to the discourse, very little guidance exists. However, a number of forward-thinking companies provide promising examples; in what follows, we describe a few of these examples as well as other ideas for businesses interested in thinking beyond net zero. 1. Taking the high (impact) road We first consider a scenario relatively free of constraints, where a company could, within budget, simply allocate its resources to whatever efforts would maximize climate impacts. This generally consists of two types of strategies: catalytic investments in technology in the company’s sector, or making donations to high-impact charitable organizations. This may sound idealistic, but there are examples of pioneering companies following this route. These may not reflect the realities of most businesses, but they can help give an idea of different mechanisms to leverage resources in unique and highly effective ways. If businesses are open to considering unconventional, high-impact climate strategies, we encourage them to take into account the power of contributing to policy. Our analysis indicates that the most effective giving opportunities are organizations working to enact policy change, and to this end, we have put together recommendations for efforts in the United States and Australia. 2. Investing today for neutrality tomorrow Many businesses may not find an “impact maximization” policy feasible, and would prefer to conduct activities that are at least related to their own net-zero ambitions. Some businesses plan to meet future targets through emissions reductions and carbon removal, but carbon removal is too young and expensive for this to be possible in the short term. While net-zero goals may not be achievable at present, catalytic investments today could enable neutrality in the not-so-distant future. We think that investments in carbon removal are among the most effective options in terms of ensuring that future net-zero targets are met, and we will be making some recommendations on how to do this even at a smaller scale. 3. Ordering (better) offsets with a side of removal We recognize that some businesses will remain constrained to more immediate net-zero strategies that will necessitate the purchase of offsets; there are ways to maximize impact within this approach too. Giving Green recommends that purchasers view buying offsets as philanthropic contributions to pro-climate projects rather than as vehicles to neutralize emissions. The quality of offsets in the voluntary carbon market varies widely, and it is difficult to guarantee that an individual offset purchase leads to the advertised emissions reduction or avoidance. That being said, there is a wide range in offset quality, and we encourage companies to purchase the best possible offsets – even if they are more expensive. Through research at Giving Green, we have found a few offset options that we deem to be among the highest quality. Just as in the case of Mapbox, we also encourage companies who purchase offsets to allocate additional funds toward policy advocacy or carbon removal. As the market grows and matures, it will become more viable for companies to increase carbon removal purchases and decrease reliance on offsets, in line with recommendations from the Oxford Principles for Net Zero Aligned Carbon Offsetting. In summary, while the examples included in this post may not be broadly applicable, they demonstrate that there isn’t just one way to craft a strong climate strategy. Businesses are well-positioned to influence change in innovation within their sectors or even in the climate space at large, and we strongly encourage them to think creatively about what will truly make the largest impact. Do you work for a company that is considering a “beyond net zero” climate strategy? We’d love to hear from you! Get in touch with us here. Download our full white paper, How To Think Beyond Net Zero, here, for an expansion of the above framework and our own recommendations for highly impactful investments your company can make in climate action.

An update to our supporters. Contents Summary Background on the Giving Green Fund 2023 Q1 and Q2 allocation and options we considered Reserves and their intention Future allocations Summary The Giving Green Fund (GGF) makes donations to Giving Green’s top recommended organizations. By donating to the Giving Green Fund, donors enable responsive and impact-first grantmaking to our recommended nonprofits. In Q1 and Q2 of 2023, we recommended that grants from GGF (roughly USD$300,000) be divided equally among our top five nonprofits, other than a $50,000 reserve. Why an equal division? We did not select a most cost-effective giving opportunity when we initially recommended these nonprofits in November, and do not believe that our cost-effectiveness estimates have enough precision to distinguish between our recommended organizations. We have not learned any new information about effectiveness or organization’s needs for more funding that has caused us to re-evaluate this stance. In the future, we expect to adopt more sophisticated regranting strategies for the reserve and for newly donated funds: for instance, we could fund time-sensitive opportunities or make large donations to kickstart new projects. We also hope to learn more about donor preferences, so reach out if you are a past or potential donor and are interested in informing our team’s view on GGF. Background on the Giving Green Fund In 2022, we launched the Giving Green Fund (GGF), hosted by Giving What We Can. Every quarter, we may recommend strategic grants from the Giving Green Fund based on our top nonprofits’ funding needs and opportunities. We believe GGF is our highest-impact giving option. For instance, GGF could respond flexibly and quickly to time-sensitive opportunities from our recommendations, enabling high-potential projects that might not otherwise go forward. Using our knowledge of nonprofits’ funding gaps, GGF could also bolster nonprofits that had a weak fundraising year and contribute less to those that fundraise better than expected; individual donors are not privy to this kind of information, but GGF can ensure money goes to where it is most needed. We believe these kinds of dynamic funding strategies can have an outsized impact. As of this writing, GGF has raised about USD$300,000. Below, we’re sharing how we are recommending grants from GGF in Q1 and Q2 of 2023. 2023 Q1 and Q2 allocation and options we considered In Q1 and Q2 of 2023, all money raised in Q4 of 2022 and Q1 of 2023, respectively, was regranted. Other than a reserve, the funds were equally divided between our five top nonprofit recommendations: Clean Air Task Force, Evergreen Collaborative, Good Energy Collective, Good Food Institute, and Industrious Labs. We considered three options for allocating this money: Divide the funds equally among the five nonprofits “Top-up” on funds directed by Giving Green. For example, if we estimated that organization A had already received $30,000 in direct donations from Giving Green-influenced donors, and organization B had already received $50,000, we would “top up” organization A with $20,000. Allocate based on reassessing funding need. For example, if we believed that organization A has an especially impactful project with a large funding gap, we would direct more money to organization A. Alternatively, if we believed organization B raised more money than it will be able to productively use, we would direct less money to organization B. See below for additional details on each option. Divide the funds equally When we announced our top five nonprofits, we chose not to select a single most cost-effective giving opportunity from among them.[1] We think our current recommendations have similar levels of cost-effectiveness, within a range of uncertainty.[2] Therefore, dividing the funds equally was our default choice, unless we learned something compelling that shifted us to either of the two options below. In addition, we think there is some benefit to dividing the fund in a way that’s simple, echoing our value of transparency, so that donors can easily understand where their money is going. We plan to consider more complicated allocations in the future, but they would need to be clearly more impactful. We want to avoid creating complexity for the sake of complexity. “Even out” funds directed by Giving Green Did Giving-Green-influenced donors give much more money directly to certain organizations than others, and if so, should GGF be used to even out total fundraising? From November 2022 to February 2023, we roughly estimate that our top nonprofits each received between $80,000 and $300,000 from Giving-Green-influenced donors.[3] Because GGF, itself, has a balance of around $300,000, it is impossible for us to truly “even out” Giving-Green-influenced donations across the five nonprofits. To get close to this outcome, we would have recommended a split of GGF between the two least-supported nonprofits, and recommended $0 to the remaining three. We are uncertain about our estimates of Giving-Green-influenced donations, as well as how they relate to each organization’s overall fundraising.[4] Based on our low confidence in these calculations, we did not feel comfortable recommending uneven allocations. Qualitatively reassess funding need Has any organization had a large change in funding need since November? For example, an organization might have lower funding need due to a large and unexpected gift or better-than-expected end-of-year fundraising. On the other hand, an organization may have relatively higher funding need due to a new opportunity for the organization to expand its activities. None of our top nonprofits reported any of the above, nor any other reason for us to believe their funding needs had substantially changed. Based on this, we again had no basis from which to deviate from recommending an equal allocation of GGF. Reserves and their intention We recommended in Q2 that $50,000 of the GGF’s balance be kept in reserve. The intention of a reserve is to potentially fund a time-sensitive, high-impact opportunity. The bulk of our fundraising happens in November, December, and January, but climate action is year-round! For example, a key window for an organization to influence stakeholders could unexpectedly open in July. If GGF were to regrant all of its money in June, there would be very little left for this potential May opportunity. We think flexible and timely funding could be a key path to impact for GGF, and one that differentiates contributing to GGF from direct gifts to our top nonprofits: through our relationships with our recommendations, we are able to use money in ways that individual donors alone cannot. Of course, such an opportunity might not arise, so we do not think it is prudent to hold too much money in reserve. However, a reserve amount would need to be large enough to matter if an opportunity does present itself. Based on the overall size of GGF and what we believe to be a lower-bound threshold for a meaningful grant amount, we feel $50,000 is currently an appropriate reserve balance. Future allocations In 2023, we plan for GGF to become a more impactful vehicle as it grows in size and we adopt more sophisticated regranting strategies. We have not made a decision on how to allocate future funds. If you have given to, or are considering giving to, the Giving Green Fund, and would like to speak with our team about how we should think about allocations, please reach out to us! We expect future allocation methodology will largely depend on (a) the size of GGF and (b) donor preferences. GGF growing substantially would present opportunities to think more strategically about how to raise and allocate funds. For instance, GGF might allow us to more easily run “true” matching campaigns. We could make a large donation to a single organization to open a new country office or have multi-year funding certainty. We could consider providing seed funding for new organizations focused on neglected but promising interventions. In our Q1 and Q2 decisions, we realized we did not know much about the preferences of GGF donors. For example, does a GGF donor prefer for their donation to go to a certain number of organizations, to achieve a “portfolio” of giving? Do they prefer for their money to be regranted as soon as possible, or would they want GGF to hold onto the funds if we thought a more impactful funding opportunity could arise in the near future? We do not currently have good answers to these questions. This year, we expect to learn more about GGF supporters’ preferences, which may affect how we manage GGF. We are first and foremost focused on maximizing the impact of grants, but we recognize that GGF is nothing without donors that align with its vision! Thanks to our operational partner, Giving What We Can, for hosting and managing the operations of the Giving Green Fund. Give to GGF following the instructions on Giving What We Can’s website. Endnotes [1] To be precise, we think some of these recommendations will prove more cost-effective than others in reality. However, we doubt we will ever be certain enough which ones will be more cost-effective to justify actively fundraising more for one over the others. Though this is unsatisfying from a truth-seeking perspective, it is in line with our value of humility. For more, see 2022 updates to Giving Green's approach and recommendations: Key uncertainties and plans to address them. [2] As a heuristic, we consider something to plausibly be within the range of cost-effectiveness we would consider for a top recommendation if its estimated cost-effectiveness is within an order of magnitude of $1/tCO2e (i.e., less than $10/tCO2e). [3] Though we work with the recipient organizations to estimate our impact, not all of the recipient organizations are comfortable disclosing these numbers publicly, so we’ve chosen to not release any of the organization-specific estimates. [4] For more on how we estimate donations and our uncertainties, please see our 2022 annual report.

Watch the webinar, featuring speakers from Google, Microsoft, Stripe, and Mapbox! For many companies, net zero is impossible—for now. Pressure is mounting for companies to develop and implement meaningful climate strategies. However, conventional approaches to carbon neutrality have limitations: direct emissions reductions remain out of grasp for most businesses, and the efficacy of many carbon offset projects is highly uncertain. Instead of offsetting the past, some visionary companies are decarbonizing the future. This webinar showcases a group of businesses that are thinking beyond their own carbon footprints to maximize systems-wide climate impact. From advocating for more stringent climate policy to supporting climate tech innovation to improving conventional offsetting, the case studies will provide new models for effective corporate climate action for companies of all sizes. The webinar builds on climate evaluator Giving Green’s latest white paper on effective corporate climate action, which recommends four evidence-based, actionable climate strategies that businesses can take to go beyond immediate neutrality and maximize climate impact. Access the white paper here. Speakers: Annie Guo, carbon removal program manager at Microsoft Dr. Zeke Hausfather, climate research lead at Stripe Marena Smith, social impact manager at Mapbox Devon Swezey, global energy markets & policy at Google Moderator: Dr. Dan Stein, founder, Giving Green

Giving Green's advice was featured in The Cut: When you need to fly, buying carbon offsets — or paying a company to reduce emissions to compensate for the carbon footprint you personally contribute by driving or flying — is often recommended as a partial solution. However, you should check to make sure your money is actually going toward decreasing emissions, and avoid giving it to a second party, such as an airline, that offers to make the contribution for you. Giving Green, an initiative that seeks to give scientific, transparent recommendations on where to donate to fight the climate crisis, fact-checks all the carbon-offset companies on its site. But keep in mind that carbon offsets are more of a Band-Aid solution. Dan Stein, a co-founder of Giving Green, recommends supporting organizations that seek real, systemic change. “People shouldn’t forget about their carbon footprint, but they should try to make choices that support a low-carbon ecosystem,” he says. ... In addition to ensuring that your money isn’t actively contributing to climate change, you can donate to help fight it. Stein recommends that people use their money to support organizations working toward systemic change, such as the Clean Air Task Force, or donating to the Sunrise Movement Education Fund. Meiman recommends donating to climate-change-based mutual-aid organizations, such as Giniw Collective, which created a bail fund for those protesting Enbridge’s Line 3 pipeline. Donating your time can be valuable too: “Organizations like the Sunrise Movement need people power,” Stein says. Where can you give to fight climate change today? Learn more about Giving Green's top five nonprofits here.

We're excited to share that our friends at Effective Altruism Australia Environment are hiring for a Manager of Climate Giving. We're even more excited that this position will be working closely with us, the Giving Green team, on an EAAE/GG partnership to build on our research identifying effective climate giving opportunities for Australians. The role will initially be on a one-year contract, with option and intention to extend. The full job description is below. Applications are due EOD November 03. Effective Altruism Australia Environment: Manager of Climate Giving Location: Remote within Australia Effective Altruism Australia Environment (EAAE) is hiring a Manager of Climate Giving. EAAE helps Australians maximise the impact of their donations in the environmental space. To achieve this, EAAE is partnering with Giving Green to rigorously assess and recommend nonprofits in Australia that do high-impact climate work. As EAAE’s Manager of Climate Giving, you will oversee research, communications, fundraising, and operations for this partnership (“Giving Green Australia” or GGA). You’ll have the opportunity to guide our expansion at a key inflection point in our growth. About EAAE and Giving Green Effective Altruism Australia Environment: EAAE is a nonprofit that supports Australians in doing the most good for the environment. EAAE is part of the effective altruism movement, which applies evidence and reason to determine the most effective ways to improve the world. Giving Green: Our mission is to make high-impact climate giving easier, for everyone. Launched just two years ago, our evidence-based giving guide has moved over 3 million dollars and has been featured in Vox, the Atlantic, the New York Times, and more. Giving Green (GG) is a semi-autonomous team housed within IDinsight. About the Role You’ll be managing the needs of a growing team while shaping Giving Green Australia (GGA)’s strategy and future impact. You’ll have the support of and work closely with Giving Green’s international team of impact evaluators and climate experts. This role will require independence, flexibility, and the ability to wear many hats, depending on the needs of GGA as it grows. Communications, fundraising and research will be the three central parts of the role. We are open to candidates who may be stronger in some areas and weaker than others, but the candidate will be expected to manage all three workstreams, working with GG’s team, EAAE’s team, and outside consultants where necessary. Depending on the candidate's strengths, responsibilities will include some of the following: Research Synthesize academic literature and expert opinions on effective policy change interventions. Conduct quantitative cost-effectiveness analyses. Write research reports suitable for a general audience. Manage the work of research consultants. Communications Develop and implement communications strategies, across traditional and digital media, together with GG’s comms staff. Secure media coverage for GGA, including earned media and op-eds. Produce written and visual content based on research outputs. Build and maintain relationships with Australian communities and organisations in climate, philanthropy, effective altruism, and the media. Facilitate events or collaborative opportunities to build engagement and awareness about effective climate change funding. Measure the impact of communications work and continually improve our strategy. Fundraising Develop and execute GGA's donor strategies: Own the creation and delivery of a multi-year major donor strategy, with accountability for the major donor revenue. Manage GGA’s donor relations: Liaise with our existing and potential major donors, building authentic and deep relationships; cultivate a broad base of small donors to raise support for GGA and its recommended charities. Write grant proposals and maintain relationships with institutional funders. Create and manage scalable, simple processes to manage engagement with prospects and existing major supporters. Represent the organisation externally at networking opportunities and relevant forums. Desired Qualifications Note that the list below lays out our desired qualifications. We know that strong candidates may not check all boxes, but we are looking for strength in some areas and a willingness to grow in others. General qualifications Excellent oral and written communication skills in English. Thrives in a flexible jack-of-all-trades role on a small team. Strong communicator and relationship-builder. A natural at engaging with a wide variety of stakeholders, including CEOs, founders, and private donors. Entrepreneurial spirit and passion for taking action on climate change. The ideal candidate will have experience in some or all of the following: Desk-based applied research; ideally 1+ year in the climate space. Australian climate policy, whether as a researcher, policymaker, activist, staffer, or otherwise; knowledge of key stakeholders and changemakers. Causal analysis, using both qualitative and quantitative methods. Sharing complex, nuanced, and technical ideas with a general audience. Digital communications tools and platforms: Google Analytics, Mailchimp, Wix, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. Successfully securing traditional media coverage for an Australian audience. Experience building a small team: for instance, developing a brand, building organisational systems. Donor or stakeholder management, especially in a not-for-profit setting. Nuts and Bolts This position is fully remote. We are unable to sponsor visas. Candidates will need to be based in Australia. Remuneration will be commensurate with experience and competitive for the non-profit sector. The salary package is likely to fall between 80,000-100,000 AUD, including salary, super, and NFP salary packaging benefits. If you have salary requirements, please state them in your application. All fixed-term EAAE employees are eligible for entitlements outlined in the National Employment Standards (e.g., 4 weeks annual leave). Initially, this position will be fixed-term for one year. EAAE intends to renew the position at the 10 month mark, contingent on raising sustainable funding for GGA. Start date is flexible and likely to be in early 2023. Applications are due November 03. Applications received after this date may or may not be considered. To Apply Apply here. Any questions should be directed to: michael.noetel (AT) eaa.org.au; please cc givinggreen (AT) idinsight.org Only short-listed candidates will be contacted. If selected, you will be asked to complete a 2-3 hour written work task and interview with members of the Giving Green and EAAE teams.