Search Results

SRM: Grantees // BACK The Giving Green Fund has awarded or plans to award grants to the following organizations to support their work advancing the governance of solar radiation management: The Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering (DSG) International Center for Future Generations (ICFG) To understand how we identify high-leverage opportunities for philanthropists to support advancing solar radiation management governance, please see Giving Green's deep dive on solar radiation management .

GFI is one of our top climate charity picks in 2024. Read our research into their work advancing alternative proteins. Good Food Institute: Recommendation // BACK Good Food Institute: Recommendation Last updated in November 2024. The Good Food Institute (GFI) promotes alternatives to conventional livestock products through science, policy, and corporate engagement workstreams. GFI is one of the top climate nonprofits selected by Giving Green in 2024. Livestock emissions are the largest source of food system emissions and are only expected to grow in the coming decades. We think shifting demand from emissions-intensive conventional livestock products to alternative proteins, such as plant-based and cultivated meat, is one of the most promising pathways to decrease emissions from agriculture and land use. According to our theory of change, GFI's work to make alternative proteins as delicious and affordable as meat could reduce meat consumption and help people follow a more climate-friendly diet. We recommend GFI because of its successful track record, breadth of expertise, and strategic approach. We think GFI plays a unique and important role in promoting alternative proteins and that its work could reduce demand for conventional meat. We also believe GFI has substantial room to grow in its three programmatic areas and across its regional offices. Since alternative protein production is still in its early stages, we plan to continue to monitor alternative protein development and look forward to following GFI’s efforts in this space. We previously recommended GFI in 2022 and 2023. For more information, see our deep dive research report , a summary below, and our more comprehensive food sector report . What is the Good Food Institute? GFI is a nonprofit that seeks to make alternative proteins competitive with conventional proteins in terms of taste and price. Launched in 2016, GFI is headquartered in the US and has independent affiliate offices in the Asia Pacific region (based in Singapore), Brazil, Europe, India, Japan, and Israel. How could GFI help address climate change? Livestock emissions include direct emissions from livestock, such as methane release from cows, and indirect emissions, such as those caused by deforestation. Reducing livestock production is an important lever for driving down emissions and freeing up land that could be used for carbon sequestration activities. We think that making alternative proteins equal to or better than conventional meat could make them the default choice for more consumers, resulting in fewer food system emissions. What does GFI do? GFI has three focus areas: science, policy, and industry. Its science-focused activities include identifying research gaps, regranting to and advocating for open-access research, and convening scientists. Its policy workstream includes advocating for increased government funding for alternative protein research and development, campaigning for fair-label laws, challenging cultivated meat bans, and establishing a clear path to market for cultivated meat. Its industry work includes supporting smaller alternative protein startups and building relationships with large agri-food companies to encourage them to invest in alternative protein products. What’s new at GFI in 2024? GFI added significant wins to its track record in 2024. Highlights include its partnership with the Bezos Earth Fund to unlock $100 million of funding for three global alternative protein research centers, engagement with Singapore’s Islamic council on the first-ever authoritative ruling that cultivated meat can be halal, and opening GFI’s newest office in Japan. Its ongoing work includes continued wins unlocking millions of dollars of public funding for alternative protein innovation, securing support for alternative proteins as national priorities, and challenging several cultivated meat bans in Europe and the US. What would GFI do with your donation? GFI is currently fundraising for its three-year goal of $125 million. GFI would use this funding to maintain core operations across its seven global organizations and expand internationally, including its recent launch of GFI Japan and plans for building GFI Korea. Why is Giving Green excited about GFI? We think GFI continues to be a powerhouse in alternative protein thought leadership and action. It has strong ties to government, industry, and research organizations and continues to achieve impressive wins. We believe donations to GFI can help stimulate systemic change that reduces food system emissions on a global scale. Explore ways to give to Good Food Institute and more. GFI 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 GFI’s 501(c)(3) arm, and not on GFI’s 501(c)(4) entity. This is a non-partisan analysis (study or research) and is provided for educational purposes.

This grant to the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development funds its work to stop dumping of polluting chemicals from cooling equipment. Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development // BACK Overview The Giving Green Fund plans to award a restricted grant to the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development (IGSD) for its campaign to stop “environmental dumping” of new inefficient cooling equipment. IGSD is a US-based nonprofit focused on slowing near-term warming as quickly as possible. IGSD falls within our philanthropic strategy of supporting an energy transition in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) . 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 IGSD? IGSD is a US-based nonprofit, founded in 2003, focused on “fast-action” climate mitigation. It targets reductions in non-CO2 greenhouse gases that have shorter lifetimes than CO2 and much higher global warming potential (GWP). Often referred to as “climate super pollutants”, they include methane, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), black carbon soot, tropospheric ozone, and longer-lived nitrous oxide. IGSD’s approach to fast mitigation includes science, technology, law and policy, as well as climate finance. IGSD works at the international, regional, national, and subnational levels. What are we funding at IGSD, and how could it help reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Obsolete cooling equipment can increase greenhouse gas emissions by leaking HFCs and using too much energy. This is a concern as demand for cooling grows, especially in emerging economies with high potential for air conditioning (AC) sales growth. IGSD, in collaboration with partner organizations, works to prevent the dumping of cheap but energy-inefficient ACs and other cooling equipment that use ozone-depleting and climate-warming refrigerants in climate-vulnerable LMICs. Dumped cooling equipment is typically prohibited from the market in the country that ships or markets the cooling products to countries that have yet to prohibit such imports, or do not have the capacity to protect themselves from such imports IGSD has monitored and reported on multinational companies exporting or marketing energy-inefficient cooling equipment to other countries and develops expert information that guides policymakers and their advisors on tools and strategies to prevent dumping. In addition to reducing HFCs, we think IGSD’s work can help promote the use of more efficient units by reducing the market share of inefficient, climate-harmful units, which would mitigate emissions from the electrical grid compared to the counterfactual. This would also help low- and middle-income countries access affordable, next-generation technology that will provide safe, efficient, and reliable cooling for many years to come. IGSD plans to use extra funding to support its stop dumping campaign. This could include organizing two Stop-Dumping workshops that convene stop-dumping champions from Africa, Southeast Asia, Island States, and Central Asia to share knowledge and strategies. The funding would also allow IGSD to build on past work, update data in key regions, and conduct deeper research into the causes of environmental dumping for more effective solutions. Why do we think IGSD will use this funding well? We think the success of IGSD’s Stop-Dumping campaign depends on its proven track record. Since 2018 IGSD has helped define the dumping problem, develop solutions, and recruit and train partners to ensure the campaign expands, endures, and delivers real change for climate-vulnerable LMICs undergoing energy transition. Our impression is that IGSD has cultivated strong relationships, which boosts its chances of success. For example, IGSD has partnered with key stakeholders including country partners, CLASP, the Climate & Clean Air Coalition , the United Nations Environment Programme, and others to ensure the program endures and expands.. We think that with additional funding to support its stop-dumping campaign, IGSD can expand this work to other geographies. 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. This is a non-partisan analysis (study or research) and is provided for educational purposes.

Farmers for Climate Action (FCA) is a movement of farmers, agricultural leaders and rural Australians working on climate solutions. Farmers for Climate Action: Deep Dive // BACK This report was last updated in December 2021. It may no longer be accurate, both with respect to the evidence it presents and our assessment of the evidence. We may revise this report in the future, depending on our research capacity and research priorities. Questions and comments are welcome. Read our full Deep Dive on Farmers Climate Action: 2021-12 FCA Deep Dive .pdf Download PDF Farmers for Climate Action (FCA) is a movement of farmers, agricultural leaders and rural Australians working to ensure they are a key part of the solution to climate change. Agriculture is a cornerstone of the Australian economy. It has a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions, and is also increasingly impacted by climate change. FCA’s members are frustrated by the federal government’s lack of response to their ongoing calls to strengthen Australia’s climate targets and policies.1 The National Party (‘the Nationals’) claims to represent Australian farming communities, but its efforts to exclude the sector from climate commitments is considered one of the biggest failures in nation-wide efforts to address climate change. FCA’s theory of change is grounded in the belief that if it organises farmers, graziers and agriculturalists to lead climate solutions on-farm and advocate together, it can influence the sector and the government to adopt climate policies that reduce emissions and benefit rural communities. Given the Nationals is one of the most significant barriers to climate action in Australia, FCA’s influence in key Nationals-held constituencies will help achieve the policies needed for Australia to reduce emissions at the scale and speed necessary to avoid catastrophic temperature rise. Officially founded in 2016, FCA is a relatively young organisation. FCA is likely to become the largest farmer-led organisation in Australia, and is the only farmer-led organisation focused solely on climate change in the Australian agricultural sector.2 FCA is a registered charity,3 with over 45,000 supporters, of which more than 6,500 are farmers.4 It has grown significantly since being established, and has a budget of almost $1.5 million for the 2021-2022 financial year. The FCA Board Directors are industry leaders, with more than 200 years of combined experience in agriculture. Despite being a relatively new organisation, FCA has proven to have significant influence on the climate change policies that will help farmers reduce emissions. FCA played a key role in gaining bipartisan support for a net zero by 2050 target through its work with conservative politicians, the NFF, and its contribution to shifting the conversation about climate change across the agricultural sector. The experts we interviewed indicated FCA was instrumental in both the Nationals and the National Farmers’ Federation’s (NFF) decision to support an economy-wide net zero by 2050 target. This is significant given the relationship between the NFF and the Nationals Party. FCA’s advocacy efforts also saw Nationals MP Anne Webster announce that she would not uphold the National Party’s line on coal. FCA has also garnered significant support from the Victorian Nationals politicians, which has also started calling for stronger climate action. In addition to FCA’s policy-focused work, its education and training of farmers is helping farmers understand and implement climate smart practices that reduce agriculture and land use emissions. This work, among other communications and research initiatives, has helped position them as an evidence-based voice on climate change, with ongoing efforts to mobilise farmers to better engage with the public discourse as well. We surveyed 52 experts in Australian climate change policy development and 11 of them cited FCA as one the most influential organisations working on climate policy in Australia: this is the second highest of any of the organisations nominated. Based on FCA’s achievements, strategic approach to addressing climate policy barriers, and the impact that additional funding would have, we recommend it as one of our top organisations for influencing federal government climate policy. Support Farmers for Climate Action. // BACK

Why we believe advancing a clean energy transition in LMICs is important, and which countries we focus on to identify impactful donation opportunities. Energy Transition in LMICs // BACK Last updated in October 2024. Download the report: Supporting a Clean Energy Transition in LMICs .pdf Download PDF • 990KB Executive summary Why did we decide to focus on Low- and Middle-Income Countries? Emissions are increasing quickly in emerging economies, and we think it is important to understand the challenges and opportunities for low-carbon and cost-effective pathways to meet growing energy demand of Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). We try to take a nuanced approach that also considers the moral imperative of High-Income Countries (HICs) leading on emissions reduction and embedding LMICs’ energy transition into a broader context of energy access, energy security, and economic growth. Why did we select India and Indonesia as our focus countries? We selected India and Indonesia primarily due to their high level of current and projected CO2 emissions. Both countries present opportunities for nonprofits to influence policy and could drive significant reductions in the global carbon budget. Why did we narrow down on the electricity sector? Electricity and heating are responsible for over 40% of total CO2 emissions in Indonesia and over 50% of total CO2 emissions in India. The electricity sector plays a central role in the clean energy transition due to its high emissions and its prioritization on the political agenda. While this document focuses primarily on the electricity sector, we have also considered strategies that include reducing emissions from LMICs across other sectors, such as industry, in our sector-specific deep dives . Nonprofits' strategies in a clean energy transition: Nonprofits in India and Indonesia advance the clean energy transition via research, government and policy engagement, mobilizing finance, community-level capacity building, implementation, and grassroots initiatives. Based on our analysis, we think research and knowledge creation, government and policy engagement, and mobilizing finance could be especially promising for high cost-effectiveness. We believe reputable think tanks have a large scope to influence national and sub-national energy transition policies by conducting reliable research, cultivating government partnerships, and acting as advisory bodies. Theory of change: Government and policy engagement as well as research and knowledge creation, can increase political support and capacity to implement ambitious electricity policies. Mobilized finance can also help make clean energy projects bankable. Combined, these can result in increased implementation of clean energy projects, leading to efficiencies that can reduce costs. Subsequently, higher adoption of renewable and energy-efficient technologies would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Key uncertainties and open questions: We are unsure to what extent nonprofits working in the energy transition space in India and Indonesia can influence policy and how resistant this is to changes in government. Although we relied heavily on local experts and funders in our research, we recognize that our understanding of the nonprofit landscape is most likely incomplete. Bottom line / next steps: We believe supporting research and government and policy engagement, as well as mobilizing finance, is promising in India and Indonesia. We think that organizations promoting these strategies could advance more ambitious electricity policies in India and Indonesia. We are considering funding organizations working on these strategies.

We chose The Superpower Institute as one of the most effective climate organisations. Read more about our decision. The Superpower Institute: Recommendation // BACK Last updated in 2024. Giving Green recommends The Superpower Institute as one of Australia's most effective organisations combating climate change. Their theory of change is compelling, and their staff holds uniquely strong expertise. We are further excited by the thought leadership it has built popularising Australia as a renewable energy superpower. The Superpower Institute aims to help Australia seize the extraordinary economic opportunities of the post-carbon world while allowing Australia to become a major player in climate globally. The Superpower Institute has an ambitious plan for accelerating Australia’s development into a major exporter of renewable energy and green industrial products. In addition to mitigating domestic emissions, which make up approximately 1% of global emissions, The Superpower Institute’s approach may also provide Australia with an opportunity to decarbonise up to 7% of global carbon emissions. If successful, this approach would deliver significant economic benefits coupled with significantly higher levels of impact on climate change than could be achieved under any domestic strategy. The Superpower Institute reports a funding gap of $1.5 million AUD and would invest additional funds in expanding its research and policy work. For more information, see our deep dive research report and a summary below. What is The Superpower Institute? The Superpower Institute is an Australia-based nonprofit focused on accelerating Australia’s transition to a renewable energy "Superpower" – a major green energy and green industrial exporter. Through this approach, Australia could do more than just reduce its own domestic emissions; it could play a globally important role in addressing climate change. The Superpower Institute was launched in 2022 by two of Australia’s most respected economists, Ross Garnaut AC and Rod Sims AO . Ross Garnaut was Senior Economic Adviser to Prime Minister Bob Hawke, Australia's ambassador to China, and led the Garnaut Climate Change Review in 2007 and 2010. This review was the most comprehensive economic modeling project on climate change ever undertaken in Australia at the time. Garnaut has also had significant influence shaping Australian climate dialogue through his research and his books, ‘ Superpower: Australia’s Low-Carbon Opportunity ’ and ‘ The Superpower Transformation: Building Australia's Zero-Carbon Future ’. Rod Sims is another of Australia’s premiere economists. Sims was the longest-serving chair of the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission in the agency's history. How could The Superpower Institute help address climate change? The Superpower Institute aims to combat climate change by producing policy research and by engaging in public policy and evidence-based communication. It focuses on approaches to decarbonising Australian heavy industry exports, which comprise a high portion of Australia’s emissions profile. We believe this approach is the most impactful area of work in the Australian climate space. The Superpower Institute’s research and policy work can also play an integral role in accelerating the development of green industry across Australia. What does The Superpower Institute do? The Superpower Institute engages in practical research and policy advising, with a specific focus on addressing climate changes in high-impact ways while unlocking significant opportunities across the Australian economy. The Superpower Institute researches and designs regulatory settings and market incentives needed to make Australia to become a leader in green energy and associated industries. The Superpower Institute provides in-depth economic analysis and policy insights to Federal Government through advisory work, policy proposals, and research reports. What evidence is there of The Superpower Institute’s effectiveness? While The Superpower Institute is a fairly new organisation, with only a short time to develop a track record, they are gaining steady traction. Already, The Superpower Institute has assisted the South Australian Government in developing a roadmap which can help the state play a major role in building the zero-carbon world economy. The South Australian Government is already taking action to implement plans in this direction. And while The Superpower Institute’s work on a National Emissions Monitoring Roadmap, which could be implemented by Federal Government, is still in its early stages, this work has already received significant praise from organizations such as the Climate Change Authority (a Federal Government agency) and the Sunrise Project. In addition, The Superpower Institute’s founders have had significant influence in the past on climate policy, climate projects, and climate dialogue in Australia. Garnaut played a critical role in the development of the Hornsdale Power Reserve , also known as the South Australian ‘Big Battery’. When it was built in 2017, this battery was the world's first large-scale lithium-ion battery storage system, and it was one of the largest climate projects to go ahead in Australia that decade. Garnaut also coined and popularized the concept of Australia as a ‘Renewable Energy Superpower’ through his books and reports. Experts we interviewed cited Garnaut as integral to the development and dissemination of this idea, and they cited the significant impact of these ideas on federal policy. The current Australian government has also incorporated the term "renewable energy superpower" in its 2023 Federal Budget, indicating its alignment with this vision and the growing influence of Garaut’s and the Superpower Institute’s proposals. What would The Superpower Institute do with your donation? Donating to The Superpower Institute will contribute to expanded research and policy impacts. Specifically, in the short term, they will likely focus on proposals such as the National Emissions Monitoring Network—a powerful enabling feature for developing green industry in Australia and for the successful operation of Australia’s Safeguard Mechanism. The Safeguard Mechanism is a major policy implemented by the Australian Government, similar to a carbon credit scheme, that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from major companies. Longer-term policy work will focus on the design and implementation of policy architecture that will support Australia’s rapid transition to green industry for export, including the correction of market failures; accounting for externalities; and encouraging innovation to develop export markets for zero-carbon commodities where Australia has a comparative advantage, such as green aviation fuel, green fertiliser, green iron, green aluminum, and green silicon. Why is Giving Green excited about The Superpower Institute? The Superpower Institute supports the development of Australia into a major exporter of renewable energy and green industrial products. It plans to significantly accelerate the development of green industry in Australia - an approach that is strategic, large-scale, economically beneficial, and informed by some of the nation’s most renowned economists. The Superpower Institute's team offers unique expertise in climate, economics, and other fields. We think The Superpower Institute’s theory of change is compelling and that the organization is earning its position as a future leader in the Australian climate space. Donate to The Superpower Institute to advance Australia’s climate superpower: using our domestic resources to decarbonise the globe. Giving Green is part of IDInsight Inc., a charitable, tax-exempt organization. This is a non-partisan analysis (study or research) and is provided for educational purposes. // BACK

For answers on if, when, and how to use carbon offsets and carbon removals as part of your business climate strategy, read our research below. Carbon offsets & carbon removals research Why carbon offsets & carbon removals At Giving Green, we believe in decarbonizing the future, not just offsetting the past. If you are an individual or institutional donor who can be flexible about where to donate to fight climate change, please see our Top Nonprofits . We estimate that these high-impact climate donation opportunities in policy advocacy and technology advancement are an order of magnitude more effective than the best direct emissions reductions projects, such as carbon offsets. For businesses that have philanthropic restrictions, we recommend funding catalytic carbon removal technologies, and purchasing high-quality carbon offsets only if the business is constrained to net-net accounting. For more information on if, when, and how to use carbon offsets and carbon removals as part of an effective business climate strategy, take a look at our research below. This research backs our framework for business climate strategy , including our recommended carbon offset and carbon removal providers. Carbon offsets & carbon removals Our approach Up Overview of the Voluntary Carbon Market READ How to Think Beyond Net Zero READ Sector overviews Up Biochar and Bio-oil READ Forestry READ Purchasing from Compliance Carbon Markets READ Water Purification Technology READ Direct Air Capture READ Fuel Efficient Cookstoves READ Refrigerants READ Enhanced Soil Carbon Management READ Grid Renewable Energy READ Waste Biogas Capture READ Carbon removal investment portfolios we recommend Up Frontier READ Milkywire READ Carbon removal providers we have evaluated Up Charm Industrial READ Climeworks READ MASH Makes READ Carbon offset providers we have evaluated Up BURN READ Tradewater READ

Do carbon offsets based on water purification avoid avoid CO2 emissions? Read our independent analysis. Water Purification Technology // BACK This report was last updated in November 2020. It may no longer be accurate, both with respect to the evidence it presents and our assessment of the evidence. We may revise this report in the future, depending on our research capacity and research priorities. Questions and comments are welcome. Summary Offsets based on water purification technology rely on the assumption that the technology replaces the practice of boiling for purification. In general, all parties would agree that households receiving the filters are not currently boiling water nor do they plan to. However, most water purification offsets are granted on the theory of “suppressed demand,” which is based on the concept that households have a right to clean water, and if they were wealthy enough, they would have boiled the water in the absence of the new technology. Although endorsed by the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), we don’t find this logic tying water purification to decreased emissions convincing, and therefore we do not recommend any offsets tied to water purification. Offsets based on water purification are unlikely to lead to avoided emissions, and therefore we do not recommend purchasing them. Water purification as a carbon offset Water purification offsets rely on the fact that purifying water with purification devices like chlorine tablets requires less carbon than boiling water would. The key assumption is that providing alternatives to boiling will cause households currently boiling water to switch to less carbon-intensive water purification methods. No project first verifies that households are actually boiling water, to begin with. Causality There is little evidence that providing a water filtration alternative to boiling water to households has a causal impact on greenhouse gas emissions. In order to certify emissions from water purification, project implementers do not have to show that households would have been boiling water in absence of the new technology. In fact, boiling water for purification is extremely rare throughout the world, as it is very expensive to do so. Instead, offset certifiers justify water purification offsets through the concept of “suppressed demand,” which has been endorsed by the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) as a valid way to structure offsets. The logic behind this concept is as follows: poor people have a right to certain basic necessities, such as clean water. But in some cases, they are not accessing these necessities due to poverty. If they were not poor, they might use carbon-intensive approaches to achieve these necessities. By providing a carbon-neutral technology to provide these same necessities, we are providing human rights in a way that previously would only have been possible through emitting carbon. In other words, in the absence of the water purification technology and had they been wealthy enough to achieve their basic rights, households would have burned fuel to boil water. This logic is problematic for a number of reasons. First, it clearly does not require any emissions to be avoided by providing the technology. This is highly problematic for an offset. Second, there is no evidence that households would indeed boil water if they had the resources to do so. There are no examples we have seen of countries in which boiling water has become a common purification practice as the country has developed. Instead, other systems (such as UV purification) are much more common. The logic behind water purification offsets (specifically the “suppressed demand” assumption) has been challenged frequently over the years. For instance, this SSIR article called out the absurdity of the situation, and spurred some extremely interesting and heated discussion in the comments, including by the former CEO of Gold Standard. Additionally, experts agree that funding water purifiers is unlikely to decrease emissions. As described this assessment of expert opinions, the concept of suppressed demand is “considered ‘fiction’ in terms of baseline measurement” and “contradicts the goal of carbon credits that aims to reduce emissions”. Project-level additionality Water purification projects tend to give away purification technology, and therefore rely on donor funding to operate. If projects are funded primarily by offsets, they would likely satisfy project-level additionality. For projects that sell purification technology, additionality would be less clear. Marginal additionality and Permanence Since purification technology is low-cost and modular, it is likely that in a well-run project, additional offset sales would lead to additional purification technology being distributed. Therefore, they could satisfy marginal additionality. Co-benefits Water purification offsets may have the co-benefit of providing households with a means to purify their water, thus improving health. This co-benefit is most likely to occur when households are not currently boiling their water, and so is unlikely to exist if the offsets work properly. If households do boil their water, however (which we believe to be an untenable overall assumption), then these offsets may have the co-benefit of limiting exposure to indoor air pollution depending on the fuel source used by households to boil their water. Assessment of water purification projects Overall, it is clear that purchasing offsets for water purification do not avoid emissions whatsoever, and therefore we do not recommend purchasing them. References Summers, S. K., Rainey, R., Kaur, M., & Graham, J. P. (2015). CO2 and H2O: Understanding Different Stakeholder Perspectives on the Use of Carbon Credits to Finance Household Water Treatment Projects. PloS one, 10(4), e0122894. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0122894 Starr, K. (2011). Thirty million dollars, a little bit of carbon, and a lot of hot air. Stanford Social Innovation Review Blog. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/thirty_million_dollars_a_little_bit_of_carbon_and_a_lot_of_hot_air

This grant to Energy for Growth Hub will support its portfolio of work in energy abundance, including work in contract transparency, energy security, and nuclear financing. Energy for Growth Hub // BACK Overview The Giving Green Fund plans to award an unrestricted grant to the Energy for Growth Hub to support its work in various areas, including contract transparency for clean energy markets; Energy Security Compacts, an initiative that would enable the US to swiftly respond to its allied partners’ energy concerns; and nuclear financing in emerging markets. Energy for Growth primarily falls within our philanthropic strategy of supporting an energy transition in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and, to some extent, our philanthropic strategy of supporting nuclear power as a way to diversify energy portfolios . Please see Giving Green’s deep dive reports, linked above, 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 Energy for Growth Hub? Energy for Growth Hub is a think tank headquartered in Washington, DC, with a global network of researchers and advocates. Its research, policy advocacy, and thought leadership focuses on promoting energy abundance and climate resilience. Its work focuses on four main areas: (1) creating progress indicators that link economic growth with ending energy poverty; (2) exploring opportunities for new low-carbon technologies in emerging markets, especially in Asia and Africa; (3) promoting open, competitive clean energy markets and effective development finance; and (4) examining the connections between climate, energy, and development policies. Energy for Growth was founded in 2018. What are we funding at Energy for Growth, and how could it help reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Contract transparency: In many LMICs, utilities often make deals with private developers for new power capacity, without revealing the contract terms to the public. This lack of transparency slows clean energy projects, keeps prices artificially high, raises investment risks, and hinders the shift from fossil fuels to cleaner energy by preventing fair assessment of energy options. Energy for Growth and its partners are pushing for transparency, both through top-down support from leaders and bottom-up efforts from civil society and policymakers. We think increased transparency could accelerate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by (1) helping countries avoid carbon lock-in and (2) expediting a clean energy transition compared to the counterfactual. With more funding, Energy for Growth would speed up its advocacy efforts, strengthen its work with the Asian and African Development Banks, expand its global data collection, and work with partners in Asia and Africa to agree on legal ways to ensure contract transparency. Energy Security Compacts: Energy for Growth has worked alongside a partner organization to propose Energy Security Compacts, a delivery mechanism for multi-year bilateral investments that enhance energy security among US allies. Compact development would include identifying and sequencing priority investments and reforms in selected countries and committing the US to providing key services, followed by years of implementation and monitoring. We believe there could be bipartisan political momentum for the US to support allied countries that rely on US competitors for energy. According to Energy for Growth, the markets where Compacts would be implemented would most likely address their energy security challenges by building out renewables. If true, we think this targeted work could help renewables scale more quickly and lead to faster reductions in emissions. Nuclear financing in emerging markets: Energy for Growth has worked with a partner organization to map advanced nuclear markets and nuclear cooperation agreements as communication tools when engaging with policymakers. Their argument is that future demand will be in emerging markets and there is a strong need to develop financing options that will help build overseas demand for advanced nuclear reactors. Focusing on international markets could lower emissions if it supports new nuclear power projects that replace or prevent the need for new fossil fuel plants. Energy for Growth would use additional funds to update its global maps and engage with the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), an agency created to catalyze US investment in overseas infrastructure projects. It plans to watchdog DFC’s progress in financing nuclear projects and propose specific changes to DFC’s reauthorization. Why do we think Energy for Growth Hub will use this funding well? Energy for Growth Hub’s past success includes being the first to propose a consolidated development finance agency, which we think helped inform the establishment of the DFC, and working with its partners to help overturn the DFC's ban on financing nuclear technologies. Energy for Growth was also involved in supporting Ghana’s public register of power purchase agreements. We think Energy for Growth will use this funding well because it has demonstrated that it is skilled at building bold but practical policy proposals. Given its global mindset, it also seems likely to us that increased funding could help Energy for Growth replicate its efforts and success elsewhere in the world. Furthermore, we think Energy for Growth has been strategic in pushing relatively niche policies, which makes us believe funding to Energy for Growth would be additional. 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. This is a non-partisan analysis (study or research) and is provided for educational purposes.

Do waste biogas capture carbon offsets avoid CO2 emissions? Read our independent analysis. Waste Biogas Capture // BACK This report was last updated in November 2020. It may no longer be accurate, both with respect to the evidence it presents and our assessment of the evidence. We may revise this report in the future, depending on our research capacity and research priorities. Questions and comments are welcome. Summary Waste sites (such as landfills and agricultural waste storage) produce biogas from the decomposition of organic materials, including the powerful greenhouse gas methane. With the right infrastructure and systems, companies and municipalities can capture this methane and either destroy it or convert it into energy. Biogas capture projects cause a clear reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emission, but it is unclear whether waste biogas carbon offsets actually cause the projects to be implemented. While we have not yet found any biogas-related carbon offsets to recommend, we do believe that there are likely circumstances where these offsets do cause real emissions reductions. Better biogas offsets are in places where methane capture is not mandated by regulation (either current or future), and in sites where the electricity generated by biogas is not enough to make the project profitable. Overall, we believe that there are likely good biogas offsets that are additional, but thus far we have been unable to find any that meet our criteria. As not all offsets are offered online, it is possible that these high-quality offsets are being directly sold to corporate buyers or are only transacted through brokers. Giving Green will continue searching for biogas projects we can recommend with confidence. Waste biogas capture as a carbon offset Landfills and agricultural waste sites produce biogas from the decomposition of organic materials. Biogas is composed of primarily methane and carbon dioxide (CO2), along with a small amount of other organic compounds. Both methane and CO2 are greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. Methane is 28-36 times better at trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2 over a 100 year period, making it a particularly potent GHG [1]. Of all methane produced in the United States, landfills are the third-largest source with approximately 14% of overall emissions [2]. Reducing methane emissions is a key priority in combating climate change. Waste sites emit methane through an anaerobic process. Large amounts of organic material (e.g. food, wood) are deposited into landfills, and agricultural waste sites contain production byproducts (such as plant husks or animal excrement). Bacteria decompose these materials and produce a mixture of gases, which is then emitted into our atmosphere and contributes to global warming. Biogas normally escapes from waste sites into the atmosphere soon after it is produced. However, if the right infrastructure and systems are put in place at waste sites, companies and municipalities can capture the methane and either destroy it or convert it into energy. Gas extraction wells and piping systems can be set up at waste sites and used to move biogas from the production site to treatment locations. At the treatment locations, biogas is either flared (burned to convert methane into a less harmful gas) [3] or converted into energy like electricity or car fuel. To encourage biogas flaring or capture, the US Government regulates large emitters of GHG through the Clean Air Act and through reporting requirements to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Regulations require landfill emissions to be measured and publicly documented. Large emitters are required to either capture and destroy or convert their landfill gas into a reusable resource [4]. However, biogas emissions from agricultural operations and smaller landfills are more lightly regulated, if at all. Carbon offsets fund the construction and upkeep of biogas capture and treatment infrastructure. In the absence of regulation or profitable circumstances, biogas capture and treatment is unlikely to occur. Causality Overall, if projects are executed correctly, then waste biogas capture is highly likely to cause reductions in atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions. Project-level additionality In the absence of regulation or profitable circumstances, biogas capture and treatment is unlikely to happen. As such, carbon offsets can be catalytic for these projects in cases in which they are additional. The cost of biogas projects depends on the size, location, and configuration of the site. There are significant capital outlays at the start of a project, as the physical infrastructure is designed and created. After the initial expenditure, there are routine costs to upkeep equipment and oversee operations. For projects that are not profitable and exempt from government regulation (e.g. too small), carbon offsets can provide a financial incentive to capture and use the biogas. The EPA estimates that a privately owned and operated project with a 3 megawatt turbine and no previously installed capture system costs approximately $8.5 million to install and will lose approximately $3.5 million over a 15-year lifetime [5]. While the above cost does not factor in tax credits or exemptions or the ability to use the electricity produced for on-site operations, the cost of biogas capture and treatment systems are often prohibitive for companies and municipalities [6]. Marginal additionality The marginal additionality of waste biogas carbon offset projects varies based on where the project is in the project lifecycle. Before construction, while trying to achieve sufficient financing for the project to go ahead, carbon offsets are likely to be marginally additional (as long as the target goal is eventually reached). After construction, however, the marginal additionality of waste biogas capture projects is relatively low as the binding financial outlay is for the construction of the initial system. In some cases carbon offsets might continue to fund operational expenses, which would satisfy marginal additionality; we have not yet found any projects in this space that make a compelling claim to use carbon offsets in that way. Permanence Some waste biogas projects destroy emissions; these have high permanence. Once the emissions are captured and destroyed, they are not at risk of leaking back into the atmosphere. We do not think that the capture of these emissions is likely to increase emissions elsewhere. For projects that use captured emissions to produce energy, we see the permanence as lower. These projects often use the gases to create energy through a process that eventually emits them, meaning that they are not permanently removed from the atmosphere. In these projects, the benefit is more “clean” energy created by gases that would otherwise have just leaked into the atmosphere without any additional benefit. Co-benefits With projects that use waste biogas to create electricity or other energy, the co-benefits are more energy produced for the surrounding regions. We view this co-benefit as fairly weak as most of the surrounding where these projects are happening have other sources of energy. Assessment of waste biogas capture projects Carbon offsets for biogas are most “impactful” when they meet the best-in-class standards for carbon offsets - additional, not overestimated, permanent, not claimed by another entity, and not associated with significant social or environmental harms - along with meeting the following conditions [7]: Project is not required by regulation to implement biogas capture and treatment Project is not profitable from the sale of renewable resources from biogas treatment Project is capital constrained and will not happen without carbon offsets Carbon offsets go directly to purchasing biogas project infrastructure or maintenance, as opposed to non-essential inputs When reviewing projects for this report, we found that it was difficult to get enough information to determine whether projects met the above conditions. Simply being certified by one of the major certifying agencies did not give us confidence that the project was indeed additional. We expect that some biogas projects will meet these conditions, and some will not. This appears to be confirmed by what others have concluded [8][9]. For example, the GHG Management Institute and Stockholm Environment Institute say that the usefulness of landfill gas projects and associated carbon offsets depends on the project. They state: “Varies by location. Projects are likely additional in most parts of the developing world. In developed countries, including the United States, some projects are pursued to avoid triggering regulatory requirements, and projects that generate energy can be economical without carbon revenue.” The report also describes how there is uncertainty in baseline levels of methane output with these projects, which further adds to the difficulty of quantifying their impact [10][11]. We therefore focused the remainder of our research on waste biogas projects in developing countries and projects involving small landfills in the US. Developing countries: Unfortunately, we found few offsets in developing countries available for sale online. The UN offers two such projects, capturing biogas from agricultural waste in India and Thailand. However, after further consideration, we didn’t feel comfortable recommending either. The Ratchaburi Farms Biogas Project in Thailand is a biogas capture system that generates energy for use on a large pig farm. The first issue with additionality is that the system may be profitable, and as a large company it’s plausible that the farm could and would have made the investment without the carbon credits. But more worrisome is that the project is quite old. It started operating in 2008, and in its original application for offset certification, it requested credits for 10 years. The project was a partnership with the Government of Denmark, who committed to buying some of the credits as part of their commitment under the Kyoto accord. So as far as we can tell, the current offsets for sale were generated before 2018 but were not part of the purchase agreement with Denmark. Given this, it is quite hard to believe that expectation of voluntary offsets purchases 10 years in the future actually contribute to additionality. The Mabagas Power Plant in India is somewhat more promising. It generates energy by procuring animal waste from nearby farmers and feeding this waste into its digesters. Without this plant, this waste would degrade and release biogas into the air. There are no regulations requiring the construction of the plant. However, a couple of worries have prevented us from recommending these offsets. First, the project seems plausibly profitable. Although the IRR documents submitted as part of the offset certification procedure claim that selling carbon credits is necessary to achieve viability, these numbers are hard to verify. Next, there is a question of who precisely is on the receiving end of these offsets. Mabagas was launched as a joint venture between two companies that mainly deal in (petroleum-based) oil and gas: the state-owned Indian Oil Company, and the German company Marquard & Bahls. As revenue from offsets will ultimately flow to these companies or their subsidiaries, it is unlikely that this capital will fuel more green projects. Overall, we cannot recommend these offsets given the information available at this time. US-based projects: Although large emitters are required to install methane capture systems, small landfills are not covered by these regulations, and carbon credits may certainly spur them to build capture systems. However, regulations are constantly changing [12], and plants may install landfill gas capture systems in anticipation of coming under regulatory authority (due to expansion or changing regulations). We explored US landfill gas offset options and, at least given the data available, felt unable to confidently recommend any of them. For instance, this landfill in Massachusetts seems to be a project that was very much spurred by carbon credits, with credits originally issued for ten years. However, the offsets available for purchase now are for the second issuance of offsets, while the actual infrastructure seems to only have been modestly updated. It is unclear what additionality these new offsets are providing. The Hilltop Landfill in Virginia was a small landfill that installed methane capture financed with carbon credits. But the landfill closed in 2013, and it seems like the investment has already been refunded from previous carbon credit sales [13]. So further sales are likely not additional. Other options we explored are larger landfills that seem likely to fall under methane capture regulations as they grow or as new regulations are put into place. Overall, we believe that there are likely good biogas offsets that are additional, but currently, we have been unable to find any that meet our criteria. As not all offsets are offered online, it is possible that these high-quality offsets are being directly sold to corporate buyers or are only transacted through brokers. Giving Green will continue searching for biogas projects we can recommend with confidence. [1] https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/28988/guidance-on-landfill-gas-flaring.pdf [2] https://www.epa.gov/lmop/frequent-questions-about-landfill-gas [3] https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-gas [4] https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-gas#methane [5] https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-landfill-methane [6] Direct-use projects (i.e. where the energy created is used to power upkeep of the landfill) cost less and have a slightly higher ROI, but are less common because they require their facilities to be nearby. [7] http://www.offsetguide.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/11.15.19.pdf [8] http://www.offsetguide.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/11.15.19.pdf [9] https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/buildings-and-cities/landfill-methane [10] http://www.offsetguide.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/11.15.19.pdf [11] https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/buildings-and-cities/landfill-methane [12] http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/16424/epa-proposes-federal-plan-under-2016-landfill-gas-regulations [13] https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/offsetting-local-inside-landfill-gas-project/ References https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-gas https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-04/documents/lmop_2017_special_session_cowan.pd https://www.r-e-a.net/work/biowaste-recycling/ https://wasteadvantagemag.com/business-case-carbon-offsets-waste-diversion-waste-digestion-composting/ https://sustainability.wm.com/downloads/WM_CDP_Climate_Change_Response.pdf https://earthworks.org/issues/flaring_and_venting/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill_gas_utilization https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-landfill-methane https://www.terrapass.com/project/flathead-county-landfill-gas-to-energy http://www.offsetguide.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/11.15.19.pdf http://www.offsetguide.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/11.15.19.pdf https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/28988/guidance-on-landfill-gas-flaring.pdf http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/permitting/toxics-emission-factors-from-combustion-process-.pdf?sfvrsn=0 https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-landfill-methane https://www.co2offsetresearch.org/consumer/Methane.html https://americancarbonregistry.org/carbon-accounting/standards-methodologies/landfill-gas-destruction-and-beneficial-use-projects https://americancarbonregistry.org/carbon-accounting/standards-methodologies/landfill-gas-destruction-and-beneficial-use-projects/landfill-gas-destruction-and-beneficial-use-methodology-v1-0-march-2017.pdf

How did we identify our top nonprofits for climate giving in 2022? Read the research on climate mitigation behind our giving guide. Climate giving strategies About our approach We start our research for top climate nonprofits by performing a broad sweep of potential climate solutions across geographies, technologies, and sectors. This process allows us to identify solution areas that might be particularly promising, overlooked and/or underfunded. We then longlist and shortlist organizations that operate in prioritized solution areas. For shortlisted organizations, we conduct deep dives to thoroughly examine each organization by mapping out its theory of change to test whether it’s likely to hold, build cost-effectiveness models, assess room for more funding, consider any co-benefits and adverse effects, and make a final recommendation decision. Our Top Nonprofits can be found here . The following research reports capture our findings during every stage of this process. We share all research reports publicly to encourage dialogue, and we value your feedback. Our research on climate giving strategies Our approach Up Giving Green's Research Process READ Our Research Dashboard READ How and why we think about systems change READ Agriculture & land use Up Food System Emissions READ Food System Emissions: Other Grantees READ Restoring and Protecting Wetlands READ The Good Food Institute: Deep Dive READ Cutting Short-Lived Climate Pollutants READ The Good Food Institute: Recommendation READ Forestry READ Policy: US Up How We Determined Our 2021 Research Priorities READ Activism: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis READ Clean Air Task Force: Deep Dive READ Giving Green's Approach to Policy Change READ Insider Policy Advocacy: Overview READ Evergreen Collaborative: Deep Dive READ Activism: Overview READ State Legislative Advocacy READ Clean Air Task Force: Recommendation READ Policy: International Up Coming soon! READ Energy Transition Up Geothermal Energy READ Nuclear Power READ Nuclear Power: Other Grantees READ Project InnerSpace: Deep Dive READ Clean Air Task Force: Deep Dive READ Energy Transition in LMICs READ Project InnerSpace: Recommendation READ Clean Air Task Force: Recommendation READ Energy Transition in LMICs: Grantees READ Heavy Industry Up Decarbonizing Heavy Industry READ Future Cleantech Architects: Recommendation READ Industrious Labs: Deep Dive READ Future Cleantech Architects: Deep Dive READ Industrious Labs: Recommendation READ Heavy Industry: Other Grantees READ Shipping & Aviation Up Decarbonizing Transportation READ Clean Air Task Force: Deep Dive READ Opportunity Green: Deep Dive READ Clean Air Task Force: Recommendation READ Opportunity Green: Recommendation READ Climate Interventions Up Carbon Dioxide Removal READ SRM: Grantees READ CDR: Grantees READ Solar Radiation Management READ The above research represents our current areas of focus. Our older research can be accessed here .

Solar Radiation Management // BACK Last updated in October 2024. Download the report: Solar Radiation Management .pdf Download PDF • 837KB Executive summary What is solar radiation management (SRM)? Solar radiation management (SRM) encompasses a range of techniques aimed at reflecting sunlight to reduce global temperatures. The most studied and acknowledged for its potential to achieve global cooling is Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI). How could stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) temporarily reduce radiative forcing? SAI is not a trade-off to climate mitigation, nor does it address the root causes of climate change, i.e., increasing greenhouse gas emissions. SAI could act as a temporary measure to reduce radiative forcing by injecting reflective aerosols into the stratosphere to increase Earth's albedo. This method reflects a portion of incoming solar radiation back into space, thereby reducing the amount of energy absorbed by the Earth. The cooling effect achieved through SAI would be temporary, as the aerosols typically remain in the stratosphere for one to three years, requiring continual injections to maintain the effect. What are the potential co-benefits and risks of SRM? We recognize the significant uncertainties surrounding SRM and believe it should only be considered in extreme circumstances due to its potential risks. We do not know how SAI deployment would affect human and natural ecosystems and existing studies provide divergent results. Research indicates that SAI could cause heterogeneous regional impacts. SAI co-benefits could include slowing permafrost degradation or reducing the rate of sea-level rise, while adverse effects could encompass changes to precipitation patterns, degradation of the ozone layer, shifts in ocean circulation, biodiversity degradation or the “termination effect” (rapid warming if SRM deployment is abruptly halted). Nonprofit capacity building and public engagement in Low and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs), policy advocacy in High-Income Countries (HICs) and international governance needs support: Nonprofits work in the SRM field by conducting research, building research capacity, policy advocacy for research, engaging with the public and civil societies, and advancing international governance frameworks. Based on our analysis, we prioritized civil society engagement in Low and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs), policy advocacy in High-Income Countries (HICs) and advancing an international governance framework. We think that pushing forward with research, particularly outdoor experiments, without proper governance or stakeholder engagement could lead to undesirable outputs, such as a premature deployment by unilateral actors or a premature moratorium due to unregulated research. Theory of change for philanthropic engagement: Research capacity building in LMICs and conducting research can lead to a better understanding of SRM's benefits and risks, thereby informing decision-making. Equipping civil society with knowledge around SRM, policy advocacy for research, and international cooperation could foster inclusive governance frameworks and evidence-based decision-making. It is not clear whether governance structures and informed decision-making would result either in a higher or lower likelihood of SRM deployment; however, we think it is the best way to ensure science-based and equitable considerations are forefront, avoid moral hazard, and reduce the possibility of unilateral or rogue actors. Is there room for more funding? Even with an increase in government and philanthropic funding of SRM in recent years, we think the sector would be capable of absorbing more funding. We believe that nonprofit capacity building in LMICs, policy advocacy for research in HICs, and advancing international governance frameworks are important and receive less funding than conducting research and research capacity building. Key uncertainties and open questions: Several uncertainties and open questions remain, including the high-level topic of whether work on SRM increases the risk of improper deployment (causing unexpected suffering), and whether exploring SRM would cause a moral hazard, slowing down mitigation efforts. We are additionally uncertain of how efforts to build SRM governance structures and advance research might influence each other and the level of consensus that should be required for decision-making on SRM. Bottom line / next steps: Our understanding of the likelihood of SRM as a feasible and desirable way of limiting the rise in temperatures remains limited. Based on the scope for impact, feasibility and funding assessment, we think that nonprofit capacity building and public engagement and advancing governance frameworks are productive pathways to advance informed decision-making about SRM.