Search Results

Securing America’s Future Energy // BACK

Clean Air Task Force: Deep Dive // BACK Download the report: CATF 2024 .pdf Download PDF • 1.55MB This report was updated in November 2024. Unless otherwise cited, information in this deep dive comes from direct correspondence with Clean Air Task Force. Clean Air Task Force is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization in the United States. As Giving Green is part of IDinsight Inc., a charitable, tax-exempt organization, we only offer an opinion on the charitable activities of Clean Air Task Force, not CATF Action. This non-partisan analysis (study or research) is provided for educational purposes. Summary Clean Air Task Force (CATF) is one of the top climate nonprofits selected by Giving Green in 2024. We previously recommended CATF in 2023 , 2022 , 2021 , and 2020 . CATF has a history of successfully advocating for a wide array of climate provisions in the US and is expanding its influence internationally. In particular, CATF has begun to scale its work on technology innovation to include global implementation and commercialization, focusing on technologies that are either nascent or lack broad support from civil society. By raising awareness and advocating for favorable policies in these areas, we think CATF can speed up decarbonization in sectors that might otherwise struggle to secure funding. When we reassessed CATF in 2024, we closely analyzed three program areas aligned with our sectors of focus—superhot rock energy, zero-carbon fuels, and transportation decarbonization—and were impressed by the teams’ technical analysis, stakeholder engagement, and policy advocacy. While we have not assessed the other program areas in detail, we have a strong view of CATF’s work overall; our recommendation is for unrestricted funding of the organization at large. CATF would use additional funds to support the multi-year strategies of its existing programs and continued international expansion. What is CATF? CATF is a nonprofit that advocates for a suite of technologies and policies to decarbonize the economy across sectors. CATF’s work can be generalized into three categories: modeling and systems analysis, technology innovation, and policy advocacy. While it has predominantly focused on the US in the past, it has expanded its work to the EU, the Middle East, and Africa. How could CATF address climate change? Many technologies that CATF prioritizes are either nascent or not broadly supported by civil society despite being recognized as critical to decarbonization. By elevating these issue areas to public attention and advocating for favorable policies, CATF can help accelerate decarbonization in areas that may otherwise struggle to secure funding. What are some of CATF’s historical accomplishments? CATF helped secure key climate provisions in the bipartisan US. Energy Act of 2020, and provided technical assistance and input on important authorization and funding measures in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). It also successfully advocated for Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provisions relating to cutting methane pollution, advancing neglected low-emissions technologies, and making tax incentives and grants stackable. CATF was instrumental in catalyzing the Global Methane Pledge, introduced by US President Joe Biden and EU President Ursula von der Leyen in September 2021, and signed by more than 100 countries at COP26. Under this pledge, countries collectively agree to reduce methane emissions by 30% by 2030. What’s new at CATF in 2024? CATF has been deeply engaged in advancing key policy priorities in the US and EU that align with our philanthropic strategies, including a federal clean fuel standard and R&D funding for advanced geothermal technologies. Moving forward, CATF is continuing its expansive policymaker engagement and education on these crucial policy levers. CATF is conducting first-of-a-kind modeling of the full U.S. transportation sector to assess the impact on fuel demand and emissions under a range of potential policy developments. In terms of its work on geothermal, CATF continues to provide thought leadership on superhot rock geothermal and has broadened its policy work to include supporting demonstrations of existing next-generation geothermal technologies. CATF’s efforts underpin its goals to enable positive policy progress on key technologies in priority geographies. Is there room for more funding? We think that CATF could effectively absorb more money to expand geographically and sustain multi-year program strategies. Are there major co-benefits or potential risks? We think the major co-benefits and adverse effects of CATF’s work are more directly linked to the technologies for which CATF advocates. For example, co-benefits for geothermal include a geothermal power plants’ smaller land footprint compared to other generating technologies, improved air quality compared to continued fossil fuel usage, and job opportunities for former fossil fuel workers. Adverse effects include risks of contaminated groundwater and induced seismicity. Co-benefits for ZCFs include lower air pollution, and adverse effects include toxicity and other safety concerns. For more information, see our deep dives on Geothermal Energy and Decarbonizing Aviation and Maritime Shipping . Key uncertainties and open questions: Key uncertainties include the consequences of rapid growth, support of incentives for power sector carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) and enhanced oil recovery (EOR) for storage of captured emissions or atmospheric removals, support for a broad low-carbon hydrogen portfolio, hedging our bets on next-generation geothermal technologies in different stages of development, and the general feasibility of decarbonizing aviation. Bottom line / next steps: We classify CATF as one of our top recommendations for nonprofits addressing climate change. We think there is strong evidence to support its work in technological innovation and its increasingly international influence. Also, we think its strategy of focusing on emerging technologies and neglected sectors can help accelerate interventions and activities that would otherwise struggle to secure funding. In particular, we find its work in superhot rock energy, zero-carbon fuels, and transport decarbonization to be highly effective and complementary to the work of our other recommendations in geothermal energy and decarbonization of aviation and maritime shipping: Project InnerSpace and Opportunity Green , respectively.

Forestry Carbon Offsets // BACK This report was last updated in September 2022. The prior version of this report was published in October 2021 . Table of Contents Summary Overview Forests as a carbon offset Mechanism Causality Project-level additionality Marginal additionality Permanence Cost-effectiveness Co-benefits and adverse effects Assessment of forest projects Finding high-quality forest projects Closing the quality gap References Endnotes Summary Preventing deforestation plays a key role in reducing climate change, but forest carbon offsets suffer from two main problems that make it difficult to know their actual impact: permanence and leakage. For example, trees must stay alive for many years to keep CO2 out of the atmosphere but face numerous threats (e.g., wildfires, tree disease). Additionally, some forestry offset projects may shift where deforestation occurs and thus have no net effect on avoided emissions and carbon removal. This leakage adds a layer of uncertainty to any forest project that is very difficult to account for. Therefore, reliable measurement, reporting, and verification of greenhouse gas mitigation are highly important for forestry offsets. However, we have not found any forest offsets that we feel confident recommending. We would consider searching for high-quality projects that can resolve these difficulties. Overview Forest conservation, improved forest management, and afforestation/reforestation projects have gained popularity as “nature-based” solutions to fighting climate change. This trend makes sense, as deforestation contributes around 8% of the world’s annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (Gibbs et al., 2018), and the revitalization of forests can be a vital carbon removal solution. Nature-based projects have received substantial financial support from companies like Apple, which launched a $200 million Restore Fund in 2021 (Lyons, 2021); Amazon, which launched a $100 million restoration fund in 2019 (Palmer, 2020); Netflix (Calma, 2021); and others to help achieve their net-zero climate goals. Additionally, the World Economic Forum established an initiative to plant 1 trillion trees by 2030 (Samuels, 2020). This increased interest in supporting forest conservation and tree-planting comes as the world’s tropical forests lost 12.2 million hectares of tree cover in 2020 (roughly the area of Pennsylvania) (Roesinger, 2021), a 12% increase from the year before. In addition, the speed of ongoing deforestation led to many degraded forests becoming carbon sources instead of carbon sinks (Murphy & Mooney, 2019). The increased global attention to addressing this challenge warrants a deeper look into forest carbon offsets. Forests as a carbon offset Types of carbon offsets An analysis by Carbon Direct found that forest offset projects made up roughly 60% of carbon credits available in voluntary markets between 2015-2020 (Mitchell-Larson & Bushman, 2021). Forest offset projects generally fund non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working to protect or increase forest cover. There are three types of projects (Parajuli et al., 2019): Avoided conversion – Avoided conversion projects identify forested land under threat of deforestation and take specific actions to prevent deforestation. I mproved forest management (IFM) – IFM is any change from conventional logging that reduces net emissions (Griscom & Cortez, 2013). IFM practices include reducing environmental damages from logging, identifying and creating conservation zones, and enabling tree growth and regeneration. Afforestation/reforestation – Afforestation and reforestation increase forest cover by adding new trees. Afforestation plants trees in areas where there were no trees before, while reforestation plants trees in forests that have been depleted. Mechanism Forest projects have the potential to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and avoid CO2 emissions. Carbon removal – Living trees remove carbon by fixing CO2 from the atmosphere and converting it into carbohydrates, which the trees need to function and make wood for growth. Trees store this carbon in their trunk, branches, leaves, and roots. Some of this carbon is released by the tree while the tree is still alive. For example, trees ‘exhale’ some CO2 at night when photosynthesis ceases due to lack of sunlight. Avoided carbon emissions – Trees lock up most of their carbon for as long as they are alive. When these trees die and decompose, they become a source of greenhouse gases (GHGs) by releasing their stored carbon. Protecting trees from destruction helps avoid carbon loss. The three types of carbon offset projects primarily use the mechanisms described below: Table 1: Carbon offset project type and mechanism for mitigating climate change Causality There is uncertainty on how much forests impact cooling. Many climate scientists believe that increasing forest cover is a critical tool in fighting climate change. However, there are challenges related to accurate measurement, reporting, and verification of GHG emissions. For example, there is considerable uncertainty on how much carbon is stored in forests and how much carbon they gain and lose. Sources of uncertainty include the following (Petrofsky et al., 2021): Difficulties accessing remote forests Limited inventory (e.g., field measurements limited to small areas) Forests’ large extent Additionally, the impact of trees on the climate is complex because trees release a variety of gases into the atmosphere and also impact the earth’s reflectivity (albedo) (Popkin, 2019). Emitting other gases into the atmosphere – Although direct carbon capture has a cooling effect, trees emit other gases into the atmosphere (Pearce, 2019), some of which may have warming effects. For example, trees can be a methane source by (1) acting as a conduit for methane produced by microorganisms in the soil and/or (2) releasing methane from its decomposing parts. Additionally, trees also release volatile organic compounds such as isoprene, which has both warming and cooling effects. Impacting albedo – Trees can affect warming by changing how much solar radiation the earth reflects. For example, conifers with dark leaves in far northern forests have a lower albedo than their surrounding snow cover, which is highly reflective. Planting dark trees in this area would increase the amount of solar radiation absorbed, which could reduce or even eliminate the positive effects of their carbon capture. Forestry projects that are based in the tropics are less likely to be impacted by the albedo effect. Ultimately, projects focused on improving forest cover likely increase carbon storage on average but there is uncertainty on each project’s mitigation potential. Furthermore, each project must be appropriate to the local context. It is challenging to compare forest projects against their counterfactuals. Even when we assume that increasing the number of trees unambiguously fights climate change, establishing the causality and additionality of any forest project on carbon sequestration benefits can be difficult. For example, some forest offset projects aim to prevent deforestation by paying landowners not to cut down their trees - but how can you know that they would have cut down the trees without the credit? Third-party voluntary certifying organizations like Verra and Gold Standard try to address concerns related to causality and additionality by (1) selling offsets that meet detailed standards and (2) requiring projects to document the history of the land and suggest what would have happened under the counterfactual (e.g., in the absence of credits). However, there is limited rigorous evidence of valid counterfactuals. For example, CarbonPlan uncovered systematic over-crediting of forest offsets under California’s forest offset program (Badgley et al., 2021). The difference between how much CO2 was supposedly and actually offset was about 30 million tons of CO2, at a cost of $400 million. This over-crediting happened because project developers created faulty counterfactual baselines and therefore overstated the projects’ climate benefits. In addition, a study that examined 12 projects in the Brazilian Amazon found that the projects overstated carbon emissions reductions partly because the baselines they used were based on historical trends of deforestation that were no longer realistic (West et al., 2020). Without a convincing counterfactual, it is hard to trust claims of how much forestry projects avoided CO2 emissions or removed CO2 from the atmosphere. Forest projects can lead to leakage. Forest projects can suffer from leakage when projects that prevent deforestation in one area cause tree destruction to occur in a different location. Leakage is likely to happen if projects do not address the underlying demand for non-forested land. For example, a project in Brazil might protect a specific forested area from being converted to pasture land, but shift deforestation to another forest if the ranchers’ demand for agricultural land and income goes unmet. Leakage can also occur under afforestation projects when people are incentivized to cut down mature forests to have clear land for planting new trees. Leakage risks depend heavily on the underlying reason for deforestation and the outside options for the people demanding deforestation. Difficulties in measuring carbon removal and avoidance can lead to exaggerated claims. Forest carbon offset projects typically neither measure GHG emissions directly nor quantify other contributions to warming, presumably because doing so would be prohibitively expensive. Instead, people often model avoided emissions and CO2 removed based on the number and species of trees planted, managed, or conserved. However, project developers are incentivized to exaggerate claims about the number and type of trees in their forests, as well as the benefits of their forest management practices. Third-party voluntary certifying agencies address this by requiring periodic audits, but the program implementers generally contract these themselves, which presents a conflict of interest. There are few rigorous impact evaluations of forest interventions. There are few rigorous impact evaluations of forest interventions in the public policy literature. We describe a few examples below: Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) In a randomized controlled trial for a PES program in Uganda, farmers were paid not to cut down their trees (Jayachandran et al., 2017). The researchers found decreased deforestation compared to control areas and established that leakage was unlikely to occur. A separate study of a government-run PES program, this time implemented in Mexico, found a reduced rate of tree cover loss in areas enrolled in the program compared to areas that were not (Department of Applied Economics, Oregon State University et al., 2018). Although overall rates of observed forest cover change were low, some areas at an exceptionally high risk of deforestation saw reductions of 40 percent in tree cover loss. Afforestation/reforestation – A study published in 2021 mapped over 400 tree plantations in India planted between 1980 and 2017 and raised serious questions about the success of tree planting and forest restoration campaigns, finding no change in tree canopy cover across the plantations studied (Coleman et al., 2021). Potential reasons for this could be low survival rates of planted trees and tree planting where canopy cover is already dense. Our assessment of causality Overall, it is challenging to validate the causality of any given forest project, and for that reason, we assessed causality as low (or at least uncertain) for many forest projects. Companies have emerged to track forest activities better, estimate CO2 levels, and identify leakage using satellite imagery, LiDAR imaging, and artificial intelligence. However, it is still too early to determine whether these technologies can address causality concerns successfully at scale. For more information, please see the section, “Closing the Quality Gap.” Project-level additionality Forest conservation programs are usually run by NGOs dependent on outside funding or private sector project developers. For NGO-run projects, it seems reasonable to assume that income from offsets is directly fueling project operations, allowing more activities than without them. Therefore, for these projects, we assess project-level additionality as high . However, sometimes forest offsets are related to enterprises looking to profit by selling lumber. In these cases, the effort may have been profitable without offsets, and therefore it may not satisfy project-level additionality. Marginal additionality Marginal additionality means that each additional offset purchased contributes to reduced emissions. This is an important requirement for projects to work as advertised: the purchase of every single offset must cause extra GHG reduction. Forest projects generally need continuous revenue flow to keep operating and can use the additional funding to expand their work. Therefore, we believe that a well-functioning forest project is likely to satisfy marginal additionality. However, a well-functioning forest project would need to demonstrate that offset revenues led to carbon removal or avoidance each year . Buyers should consider the vintage of the forest offset project as well. Vintage refers to the year the emissions reduction took place. For forest projects where emissions reductions took place many years in the past, we would assess the marginal additionality as low. Permanence The length of carbon storage depends on tree survival. Trees do not store carbon permanently because they will release much of their stored carbon back into the atmosphere when they eventually die. Therefore, the ability of trees to reduce levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and avoid carbon loss depends on their survival. [1] Forests face natural and manmade threats of destruction. Risks to permanence can be unintentional (e.g., wildfires, pests, and tree disease) or intentional (e.g., logging and arson). To address the risks related to reversal, voluntary certifying agencies assign a risk score to forest projects and require projects to place a risk-related proportion of credits into a risk buffer pool; reserved credits in the risk buffer pool can be used to compensate for reversals. However, it is unclear whether future monitoring of reversals will be adequate and if the buffer pool will be enough to account for them. For instance, a recent report by CarbonPlan questions whether the buffer pool in forest offsets in California’s cap and trade market is sufficient given the forests’ increased susceptibility to forest fires (Herbert et al., 2020). Meanwhile, over 150,000 acres of forested areas along America’s West Coast that were previously used as forest offsets burned to the ground in Summer 2021 alone (Pardikar, 2021). Recent reports suggest that typical buffer pools put in place (10-20% of the total project) are straining as wildfires, disease, and pests multiply (Wolfe & Yellin, 2021). Our assessment of permanence Permanence is an essential consideration because CO2 can remain in the atmosphere for anywhere between 300 and 1,000 years (Buis, 2019). Therefore, it is questionable for forest projects to credibly claim long-term climate benefits if their advertised benefits have a high risk of being reversed within a few years or decades. Overall, permanence is a persistent issue in forest projects, as it is tough to guarantee an emissions reduction with a temporary project permanently. As a result, we assess the permanence of many forest offset projects as low . Cost-effectiveness According to Forest Trends Ecosystem Marketplace, the average price of forestry and land-use offsets within voluntary carbon markets was $4.73 per metric ton of CO2-equivalent (CO2-eq) as of September 2021 (Donofrio et al., 2021). However, most forest projects are avoidance-based, so this price mainly reflects the cost of avoidance projects. Projects that provide carbon removal tend to be more expensive as they require significant effort to plant new trees and, ideally, maintain and monitor their growth. In 2018, afforestation and reforestation projects claiming carbon removal benefits had an average price of $5.70 per metric ton of CO2-eq (Donofrio et al., 2019). While these prices are low relative to other forms of emissions avoidance and carbon removal, their cost per actual ton of CO2-eq is difficult to assess, given questions about causality and permanence. For example, increasing buffer pools to compensate for trees dying during the life of a project would significantly increase the cost. Additionally, to permanently offset carbon emissions, the program would have to be run in perpetuity, making the offset cost prohibitively high. [2] CarbonPlan recently developed a tool to estimate the equivalent cost of making a temporary project’s carbon removal benefits permanent via continued renewal. We applied the below conditions for a tree-planting program to determine the cost of ensuring its carbon removal benefits over 1,000 years: The project costs $6 per metric ton of CO2-eq today The project lasts 20 years and is renewed every 20 years for the next 1,000 years. The project has a 10 percent annual risk of failure due to risks such as forest fires. There is a 3 percent discount rate on future costs. After entering these conditions into the tool, we found that buyers should budget around $29 per metric ton of CO2-eq for a project that only costs $6 per metric ton of CO2-eq today to deliver carbon removal benefits on a 1,000-year basis. However, implementing 20-year projects repeatedly over 1,000 years would be challenging. In another scenario, we assumed that after 60 years of renewing 20-year-long projects, we would replace the project with a direct air capture project that permanently removes carbon at the cost of $200 per metric ton of CO2-eq, which is well below today’s average cost for our recommended permanent carbon removal providers. In this scenario, the budgeted price increases to $110 per metric ton of CO2-eq (plus or minus $6), much higher than the advertised $6 per metric ton price. Ultimately, buyers should be aware that forest projects’ costs do not reflect their permanence and causality challenges. Co-benefits and adverse effects Co-benefits to forest projects include preserved biodiversity, decreased risk of zoonotic disease outbreaks, improved water quality, and increased recreation opportunities. Some projects can increase income-generating opportunities, while others can hinder these opportunities, depending on land tenure and other considerations. Also, forestry projects can have adverse effects, such as decreased land and resources for agriculture and increased risks of reduced biodiversity, intensified struggles over controlling land, and displacement of people who depend on the forests. People will need to assess co-benefits and adverse effects on a project-to-project basis because they are context-specific. Assessment of forest projects Overall, our assessment of forest projects puts us in a difficult situation. Forest projects play an important role in reducing climate change, but there is no reason to believe that these projects will happen based on market forces. Therefore, there is a need for additional funding for protection, and the offset market provides an opportunity to achieve this funding. For a high-quality project, funding conservation likely is one of the most cost-effective ways to lower GHG emissions. However, assessing the causal impact of any offset on GHG reduction is extremely difficult, and we do not believe that the certification procedures put in place by the offset certifiers give a high enough level of certainty for us to recommend a cost-effective funding opportunity. We are not the only ones to come to this conclusion on forest offsets. For instance, a guide to assessing the validity of carbon offsets categorizes forest offsets as “higher risk” of being low quality due to concerns about additionality and permanence (Broekhoff et al., 2019). While high-quality forest projects certainly deserve funding, the offset market may not currently be the optimal mechanism to deliver this funding. Offsets require high standards of certainty that are challenging for forest projects to meet. Additionally, given that offsets need to be centered around carbon accounting, it is too narrow of a framework to account for the myriad co-benefits that trees provide. Finding high-quality forest projects Forest offsets are among the most popular offsets available in voluntary carbon markets. However, the numerous projects behind these offsets vary significantly in quality, cost, and co-benefits. The popularity, variety, and challenges associated with forest offsets prompted us to consider what features we would expect to see in a forest offset project that would make us confident in recommending it. We would consider evaluating a forest project if it demonstrated the following: Causality: The project would need to show a clear causal impact, meaning: An identified counterfactual that shows deforestation happening or lower carbon stock without the project. A sophisticated analysis demonstrating that leakage is not happening. The project takes place in geographies where increased absorption of solar radiation is not a concern. Marginal additionality: The project is currently active, and the funding received is applied towards the continued advancement of the specific climate benefits claimed. Permanence: The project demonstrates a low risk of reversal and has the means to monitor setbacks. For example, the forested area would need a track record of low risk of a forest fire or widespread tree disease. Additionally, a strong buffer pool helps address permanence risks. We would also need to know how long the project will be funded for and whether it has a plan to be replaced with carbon removal purchases. Adverse effects: The project does not harm or disrupt the livelihoods of individuals living in nearby communities. Closing the quality gap Recently, organizations have leveraged new approaches and technological innovations to attempt to address some of the challenges underlying many forest projects. These efforts include: Pachama Pachama is a broker of existing forest offset projects. It uses remote sensing tools (e.g., airborne LIDAR and satellite imaging) and artificial intelligence for each of its forest projects to estimate how much carbon they store and track whether they are losing trees. To determine additionality, the company uses historical remote sensing data to compare deforestation rates in unprotected versus protected areas. It also monitors for leakage in the unprotected areas surrounding a project. Based on its analyses, Pachama identifies certified forest carbon credits where it believes the underlying assumptions are credible and resells them on its marketplace. Pachama’s technologies could help improve the measurement of the causal impact of a forest project. However, some gaps remain in accurately measuring carbon stock, eliminating counterfactual concerns, and addressing permanence issues. For example, the cost of acquiring LIDAR data has made time series data on forest ecology relatively rare (Beland et al., 2019). NCX NCX utilizes forest mapping techniques to predict carbon stock across US forests and then facilitates an exchange between landowners and offset buyers to defer timber harvests. NCX’s key technological innovation is a detailed “base map” that estimates the predicted deforestation for every plot of forested land in the United States. Aside from claiming to quantify carbon stock more accurately, NCX has a unique approach to permanence. Namely, its projects only delay tree-cutting by one year, and it sells a guarantee of this delay to credit purchasers. It claims that delaying tree-cutting on 31 acres for one year is equivalent in terms of avoided emissions to permanently avoiding tree-cutting on one acre. NCX attempts to address leakage concerns by requiring landowners to enroll their entire properties on its platform and making its platform available to small landowners. However, we still have concerns about additionality (e.g., attracting landowners who were not going to cut down their forests), market-level leakage, and the actual value of one-year contracts. Additionally, CarbonPlan has published a critique of NCX’s carbon accounting methods and identified two primary issues related to the discount rate that NCX used in its ton-year accounting (Cullenward et al., 2022). As of May 2022, CarbonPlan noted that NCX has not yet engaged with the content of CarbonPlan’s critique. Jurisdictional REDD+, Architecture for REDD+ Transactions, and Emergent Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, plus the sustainable management of forests, and the conservation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD+) is a United Nations-backed framework that helps mitigate climate change. REDD+ helps countries value forests based on their carbon and ecosystem benefits and establishes financial incentives for avoided conversion, IFM, and afforestation/reforestation. Some carbon offsets build off of the REDD+ framework. Jurisdictional REDD+ refers to an accounting framework that establishes consistent baselines and carbon crediting approaches across forest projects within a jurisdiction, such as a state or country. Some proponents believe that taking a jurisdictional approach to REDD+ reduces the risk of leakage because compared to project-scale interventions, jurisdictional interventions can take place over a larger area and address a broader range of deforestation drivers (Seymour, 2020). Initiatives like Architecture for REDD+ Transactions (ART) are developing standardized procedures to improve the integrity of crediting emissions reductions and removals in REDD+ projects and enhancing comparability across jurisdictions. Project developers like Emergent serve as intermediaries between tropical forest countries and the private sector to facilitate transactions that meet ART’s verification standards. Common challenges that jurisdictional scale programs face include the following (Fishbein & Lee, 2015): The need for government leaders and other stakeholders to see REDD+ projects as valuable and compelling enough to drive long-term changes in development (e.g., convincing ranchers to change their management practices) The size and complexity of jurisdictional programs, which can lead to gaps in capacity and resources Risks due to changes in government (e.g., new leadership from a different party) Bureaucratic turnover Lack of land tenure Our assessment of attempts to close the quality gap The above organizations and initiatives attempt to address different challenges, from causality and additionality to leakage and permanence. If these attempts result in projects that meet the criteria we outlined above, we would consider re-investigating the cost-effectiveness of forest offset projects. Giving Green is always willing to update our views and make changes to our recommendation as more information comes to light. This work is preliminary and subject to change. Questions and comments are welcome. References Badgley, G., Freeman, J., Hamman, J., Haya, B., Trugman, A., Anderegg, W. R. L., & Cullenward, D. (2021, April 29). Systematic over-crediting of forest offsets – CarbonPlan. https://carbonplan.org Beland, M., Parker, G., Sparrow, B., Harding, D., Chasmer, L., Phinn, S., Antonarakis, A., & Strahler, A. (2019). On promoting the use of lidar systems in forest ecosystem research. Forest Ecology and Management, 450, 117484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117484 Broekhoff, D., Gillenwater, M., Colbert-Sangree, T., & Cage, P. (2019). Securing Climate Benefit: A Guide to Using Carbon Offsets. Buis, A. (2019, October 9). The Atmosphere: Getting a Handle on Carbon Dioxide. Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide Calma, J. (2021, March 30). Netflix lays out plans to slash its greenhouse gas emissions. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/30/22353098/netflix-greenhouse-gas-emissions-climate-change-goals Coleman, E. A., Schultz, B., Ramprasad, V., Fischer, H., Rana, P., Filippi, A. M., Güneralp, B., Ma, A., Rodriguez Solorzano, C., Guleria, V., Rana, R., & Fleischman, F. (2021). Limited effects of tree planting on forest canopy cover and rural livelihoods in Northern India. Nature Sustainability, 4(11), 997–1004. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00761-z Cullenward, D., Chay, F., & Badgley, G. (2022, January 31). A critique of NCX’s carbon accounting methods. CarbonPlan. https://carbonplan.org/blog/ton-year-ncx Department of Applied Economics, Oregon State University, Economics Department, Environmental Studies Affiliate, Amherst College, Development Research Group, The World Bank, & Evaluation Department, National Forestry Commission of Mexico. (2018, June 17). Evaluating Mexico’s Payment for Environmental Services Scheme. https://www.profor.info/knowledge/evaluating-mexico%E2%80%99s-payment-environmental-services-scheme Donofrio, S., Maguire, P., Merry, W., & Zwick, S. (2019). Financing Emissions Reductions for the Future: State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2019. Forest Trends. https://www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/SOVCM2019.pdf Donofrio, S., Maguire, P., Myers, K., & Daley, C. (2021). Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace. 2021. ‘Market in Motion’, State of Voluntary Carbon Markets 2021, Installment 1. Forest Trends Association. Elgin, B. (2020, December 9). JPMorgan, Disney, Blackrock Buy Nature Conservancy’s Useless Carbon Offsets. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-nature-conservancy-carbon-offsets-trees/ Fishbein, G., & Lee, D. (2015). Early Lessons from Jurisdictional REDD+ and Low Emissions Development Programs. https://www.nature.org/media/climatechange/REDD+_LED_Programs.pdf Gibbs, D., Harris, N., & Seymour, F. (2018). By the Numbers: The Value of Tropical Forests in the Climate Change Equation. https://www.wri.org/insights/numbers-value-tropical-forests-climate-change-equation Griscom, B. W., & Cortez, R. (2013). The Case for Improved Forest Management (IFM) as a Priority REDD+ Strategy in the Tropics. Tropical Conservation Science, 6(3), 409–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/194008291300600307 Gupta, J. (2012). Glocal forest and REDD+ governance: Win–win or lose–lose? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(6), 620–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.09.014 Herbert, C., Stapp, J., Badgley, G., Anderegg, W. R. L., Cullenward, D., Hamman, J., & Freeman, J. (2020, September 17). Carbon offsets burning. CarbonPlan. https://carbonplan.org/research/offset-project-fire Jayachandran, S., de Laat, J., Lambin, E. F., Stanton, C. Y., Audy, R., & Thomas, N. E. (2017). Cash for carbon: A randomized trial of payments for ecosystem services to reduce deforestation. Science, 357(6348), 267–273. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan0568 Lyons, K. (2021, April 15). Apple launches $200 million fund for climate change. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/15/22385552/apple-200-million-fund-climate-change-environment Mitchell-Larson, E., & Bushman, T. (2021). Carbon Direct Commentary: Release of the Voluntary Registry Offsets Dataset. Carbon Direct. https://carbon-direct.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/CD-Commentary-on-Voluntary-Registry-Offsets-Database_April-2021.pdf Murphy, Z., & Mooney, C. (2019, January 29). Gone in a generation: Montana’s forests have swung from pulling carbon dioxide out of the air to putting it back again. - Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/gone-in-a-generation/forest-climate-change.html Palmer, A. (2020, April 21). Amazon invests $10 million to help conserve forests as part of climate change plan. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/21/amazon-invests-10-million-for-forest-conservation-in-climate-change-plan.html Parajuli, R., Megalos, M., Ruseva, T., Chizmar, S., & Fisher, M. (2019, July 10). An Introduction to Forest Carbon Offset Markets. NC State Extension Publications. https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/an-introduction-to-forest-carbon-offset-markets Pardikar, R. (2021, August 31). California’s Forest Carbon Offsets Are Burning Amid Record Fires. Gizmodo. https://gizmodo.com/climate-progress-is-on-fire-1847591945 Pearce, F. (2019, June 24). Scientists Zero in on Trees as a Surprisingly Large Source of Methane. Yale Environment 360. https://e360.yale.edu/features/scientists-probe-the-surprising-role-of-trees-in-methane-emissions Petrofsky, G., Kanamaru, H., Achard, F., Goetz, S. J., Joosten, H., Holmgren, P., Lehtonen, A., Menton, M. C., Pullin, A. S., & Wattenbach, M. (2021). Comparison of methods for measuring and assessing carbon stocks and carbon stock changes in terrestrial carbon pools. How do the accuracy and precision of current methods compare? A systematic review protocol. Environmental Evidence. https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-2382-1-6 Popkin, G. (2019). How much can forests fight climate change? Nature, 565(7739), 280–282. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00122-z Roesinger, A. (2021, August 4). What Happened to Global Forests in 2020? Global Forest Watch Blog, Global Forest Watch Content. https://www.weforest.org/newsroom/latest-news-worlds-forests Samuels, B. (2020, January 21). Trump announces the US will join 1 trillion tree initiative [Text]. The Hill. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/479087-trump-announces-the-us-will-join-1-trillion-tree-initiative/ Seymour, F. (2020). INSIDER: 4 Reasons Why a Jurisdictional Approach for REDD+ Crediting Is Superior to a Project-Based Approach. https://www.wri.org/insights/insider-4-reasons-why-jurisdictional-approach-redd-crediting-superior-project-based West, T. A. P., Börner, J., Sills, E. O., & Kontoleon, A. (2020). Overstated carbon emission reductions from voluntary REDD+ projects in the Brazilian Amazon. PNAS. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2004334117 White, J. C., Coops, N. C., Wulder, M. A., Vastaranta, M., Hilker, T., & Tompalski, P. (2016). Remote Sensing Technologies for Enhancing Forest Inventories: A Review. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing. https://doi.org/10.1080/07038992.2016.1207484 Wolfe, D., & Yellin, T. (2021, July 22). Bootleg Fire is burning up carbon offsets. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/22/weather/bootleg-oregon-fire-carbon-offsets/index.html Endnotes [1] The conservation program studied in Jayachandran et al. (2017) only lasted two years, and the authors do not claim permanence. Instead, they assume that deforestation will likely resume once the program ends and that the project’s benefit came from delaying the deforestation. [2] Jaychandran et al., (2017) found that its conservation program was lower than the social cost of carbon even when only considering a delay in deforestation. Its conclusion came from a calculation that relied on an assumed discount rate and the evolution of the social cost of carbon over time. However, we do not have a high degree of confidence that a short-term program would be cost-effective. https://givinggreen.earth/contact

Carbon180: Recommendation // BACK Note: This is our recommendation of Carbon180 as published in November 2021. As of November 2022, we no longer recommend Carbon180, largely due to their success in fundraising. See more in our Carbon180 deep dive report. Summary Carbon180 is an insider policy advocacy organization that focuses on accelerating the development of carbon removal technologies and practices, which would remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and lock it away for at least hundreds of years. Its four initiatives include (1) building and enacting federal policy to scale up carbon removal solutions, (2) accelerating the adoption of soil carbon sequestration practices, (3) encouraging community engagement between carbon removal researchers, and (4) stimulating innovation. Its tactics include research, policy advocacy, and ecosystem building. Carbon180 also centers equity and justice in its work to ensure that carbon removal can be scaled up in a way that is sustainable with equitably-distributed benefits. Image courtesy of Carbon180 Although Carbon180 is a relatively young organization, it already has a significant track record of success. In 2021, for example, it successfully advocated for the inclusion of billions in funding in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act for carbon removal research, development, and deployment (RD&D); CO2 infrastructure; and biologically-driven carbon removal (e.g. forestry). Its future work includes an effort to drive federal procurement of carbon removal technologies and products, which could catalyze scale-up and set a model for corporate investment. Based on Carbon180’s accomplishments, strategic approach, organizational strength, and cost-effectiveness, we recommend Carbon180 as one of our top charities in combating climate change. For more information on Carbon180, please review our Deep Dive report on the organization . Why we recommend Carbon180 We believe Carbon180 is an effective organization working on an important problem: carbon removal. It uses insider tactics to produce legislation that supports carbon removal, and has shown success in getting legislation passed under both Democratic and Republican administrations. It is a small organization with room to grow and absorb additional funding. Here, we present our reasons for recommending Carbon180. We also recommend that interested persons read our Deep Dive report on Carbon180 . 1. Carbon removal is necessary for preventing the worst possible outcomes of climate change. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we need both emissions reductions and carbon removal in order to keep global warming below the Paris Agreement’s climate target of less than a 2ºC rise in average global temperature. In fact, the IPCC’s 2021 Sixth Assessment Report estimates that we will need to remove somewhere between 100 billion to a trillion tons of carbon by 2100 to prevent the worst effects of climate change. Delays in driving down emissions will increase the risk of warming exceeding 1.5ºC and also increase our need for negative emissions. 2. Carbon removal is neglected as a field and needs significant financial investment. Although federal support for carbon removal technologies has increased over the past few years, these technologies are currently in their early stages of development and are too expensive to scale widely. Additionally, there has been limited demand for carbon removal technologies other than from corporate social responsibility efforts by companies such as Microsoft, Stripe, and Shopify. Support for carbon removal research, development, and deployment (RD&D) is crucial because investing in carbon removal technologies can drive down their cost and eventually enable them to scale. 3. Carbon180’s federal policy development and advocacy have been highly successful in securing support for carbon removal. Carbon180 has successfully advocated for the inclusion of carbon removal in a number of bills, including the Energy Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the Build Back Better Act. Policy provisions that were passed through the Energy Act and infrastructure bill include authorization of a comprehensive carbon capture R&D program, carbon capture demonstration plants, regional direct air capture hubs, and an extension of the Section 45Q tax credit for carbon capture and sequestration. 4. Carbon180 is cost-effective in removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere (in expectation). We estimated that Carbon180’s work on federal policy can remove CO2 from the atmosphere at a cost of $0.66 per metric ton (in expectation), which compares favorably to other high-performing organizations that we have analyzed. Because our CEA model only includes short term effects of Carbon180’s work on federal legislation, it seems likely that we may even have underestimated Carbon180’s impact and cost-effectiveness. Our results should be viewed as rough, indicative estimates given the uncertainty in our different model inputs. 5. Carbon180 has a strong policy focus and an experienced staff well-suited to influence policy. Carbon180’s team is experienced in policy and its leadership maintains close ties to policy insiders, which helps improve the organization’s chances of success. Importantly, its president Noah Deich was recently appointed to the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, which works to improve the US Department of Energy's research and development portfolio and program activities. 6. Carbon180 can productively use additional funds. Although Carbon180 has limited room for more funding through the end of 2021, it anticipates a gap in funding of around $2.5 million for its 2022 budget, which is estimated to reach $6 million total. Carbon180’s general operations is its biggest gap in funding. Risks to Carbon180 The largest points of uncertainty in our recommendation of Carbon180 are related to its need for more funding and ability to scale. For example, an expert in the donor community said that it is likely that Carbon180 will be able to meet its funding goals in 2022 through grants from large foundations. However, given Carbon180’s past performance and current funding gap, we believe at this point it can still benefit from individual donations. Nonetheless, this may change in the future if Carbon180 can indeed raise more money than it can spend effectively. Another risk to Carbon180 is the inherent uncertainty in whether R&D will sufficiently drive down the costs of carbon removal technologies and enable them to scale. However, because Carbon180 supports a wide portfolio of carbon removal technologies and practices, we are optimistic that it would be able to pivot if it became clear that one or more of its programs does not meet expectations. Conclusion For the reasons above, our team concluded that Carbon180 is likely a high-impact organization, and has decided to recommend it as a top-performing climate change organization.

Frequently Asked Questions You have questions, we have the answers. General General By check/mail Please note that all checks should be addressed to IDinsight Inc, with a memo indicating use for Giving Green. Address: IDinsight, P.O. Box 689, San Francisco, CA 94104-0689 By bank transfer Please contact us for transfer details. We especially encourage reaching out for gifts over $1000, so that we can minimize processing fees and maximize the impact of your gift. Other ways to give To dedicate your gift to a loved one or to start your own fundraiser for Giving Green, please visit this page. To give tax-efficiently from Australia, the Netherlands, or the UK, give through Giving What We Can. Research Research By check/mail Please note that all checks should be addressed to IDinsight Inc, with a memo indicating use for Giving Green. Address: IDinsight, P.O. Box 689, San Francisco, CA 94104-0689 By bank transfer Please contact us for transfer details. We especially encourage reaching out for gifts over $1000, so that we can minimize processing fees and maximize the impact of your gift. Other ways to give To dedicate your gift to a loved one or to start your own fundraiser for Giving Green, please visit this page. To give tax-efficiently from Australia, the Netherlands, or the UK, give through Giving What We Can. Donating Donating By check/mail Please note that all checks should be addressed to IDinsight Inc, with a memo indicating use for Giving Green. Address: IDinsight, P.O. Box 689, San Francisco, CA 94104-0689 By bank transfer Please contact us for transfer details. We especially encourage reaching out for gifts over $1000, so that we can minimize processing fees and maximize the impact of your gift. Other ways to give To dedicate your gift to a loved one or to start your own fundraiser for Giving Green, please visit this page. To give tax-efficiently from Australia, the Netherlands, or the UK, give through Giving What We Can. Consulting Consultig By check/mail Please note that all checks should be addressed to IDinsight Inc, with a memo indicating use for Giving Green. Address: IDinsight, P.O. Box 689, San Francisco, CA 94104-0689 By bank transfer Please contact us for transfer details. We especially encourage reaching out for gifts over $1000, so that we can minimize processing fees and maximize the impact of your gift. Other ways to give To dedicate your gift to a loved one or to start your own fundraiser for Giving Green, please visit this page. To give tax-efficiently from Australia, the Netherlands, or the UK, give through Giving What We Can. Have more questions? We're here to help. Please don't hesitate to reach out to us through our contact page.

Climate Impact Investing // BACK This report was last updated in November 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. 2021-11 Climate Impact Investing .pdf Download PDF Executive Summary Impact investing is the practice of investing with the intention of achieving measurable financial returns and social and environmental impact. Impact investments can occur across industries, asset classes, and risk/return profiles. In this report, we highlight impact investments with the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to the fight against the climate crisis. Historically, impact investing has been the purview of institutional investors or wealthy individuals. We choose to focus on opportunities available to retail investors in the United States. (Occasionally, we offer a note on additional opportunities available only to accredited investors.) We consider investments occurring in three asset classes: early-stage private equities, cash equivalents, and fixed-income investments. Image credit: US Department of Agriculture Private equity refers to direct holdings in private companies, and purchasing private equities, especially in early-stage companies, is often risky and inaccessible to unaccredited retail investors. Unaccredited retail investors can make limited investments of this type through a relatively new mechanism known as Regulation Crowdfunding. We discuss the potentially transformative impact of early-stage private equity investments and the significant risk associated with them. Cash equivalents and fixed-income investments are more conventional, and offer many more opportunities for retail investors. These types of investments generally offer a fixed, low to moderate return in addition to repayment of the principal. We highlight a range of climate-related investment offerings, including savings accounts at climate-focused banks, notes offered by loan funds that make climate-related loans, and bonds offered by companies or municipalities looking to fund climate-positive projects. We discuss a number of approaches to assess whether investing in a hypothetical project or firm has high potential climate impact. We focus on causality, or the reduction of atmospheric greenhouse gases attributable to the project, and additionality, or an individual investment’s contribution to increasing the impact of the project. While conclusions on impact cannot be perfectly generalized across an asset class, we observe some patterns. Startups promise transformative impact, but it is difficult as an investor to predict the likelihood of actually achieving that impact. On the other hand, cash equivalents and fixed-income investments usually have strong and defensible links to impact, even if that impact is limited in scope. We also note opportunities to invest for non-climate co-benefits, including economic development and providing financing to low-income communities. Overall, we find that there are promising ways to invest for climate impact across all asset classes, but that navigating this terrain as a retail investor is complicated. At this time, we do not recommend that retail investors make any investments in individual projects or firms, whether via equity or debt instruments. We also do not yet recommend donating philanthropic funds to any investment firm. We found one low-cost, low-risk way to support existing capital solutions, though we do not yet formally recommend it: moving money to a bank that specializes in lending to clean energy projects. We hope this report serves as a guide to the available opportunities to leverage investment capital for climate impact. We at Giving Green have barely scratched the surface of this wide-ranging and fast-growing industry, and we hope to continue to highlight new opportunities as we discover them.

Our Research Dashboard // BACK This dashboard explains Giving Green's exploration of various impact strategies to reduce climate change. It is not a comprehensive list and not a final say on what the "best" impact strategies are. Instead, it is an evolving list that includes early-stage assessments that are tentative and subject to change. Also, we have varying levels of certainty associated with our labels of High, Medium, and Low. Process: Our product offerings include top recommendations for unrestricted donors, business recommendations (including carbon removal and offset purchases), and investment opportunities. Our impact strategies are outputs from our research process , where we look for rough indications that there may be a fit for Giving Green. Across all product offerings, Giving Green loosely prioritizes impact strategies based on scale, feasibility, and funding need. Feedback and questions: If you have feedback or questions, please fill out this form or email us . View the dashboard: View the full dashboard as a Google Sheet here , or embedded below. Note that the dashboard may not display properly on mobile devices.

Giving Green's approach to recommending offsets // BACK This report was last updated in November 2021. Summary In this document, we explain our approach to assessing carbon offsets and determining which ones to recommend. We are searching for offsets where there is a direct, causal, and verifiable link between someone purchasing an offset and a decreased amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. First, we look at the offset market sector by sector, to determine which sectors are most likely to provide reliable offsets. For sectors that we determine to be likely to produce high-quality offsets, we then search through available projects and recommend those that meet our criteria. We rate offsets using five categories: causality, project-level additionality, marginal additionality, permanence, and co-benefits. Note that our offset recommendations are not comprehensive - we have not assessed all offsets in the market. (In fact, many offsets do not have any publicly-available information!) We have developed a systematic approach to assessing offsets, and recommend the best ones we find. As our research continues, we expect to find more offsets to recommend. If any offset providers believe that their project would meet our quality bar using the methods described below, please reach out to us! Sector-level analysis We begin by conducting offset analyses at the sector-level, since offsets in the same sector tend to have similar strengths and weaknesses. For each sector (such as forestry, renewable energy, etc.), we have produced a sector research report, in which we discuss the logic for offsets in the sector, and determine whether we believe the offsets are likely to be reliable. We generally proceed by working through the certification process for an example offset. In this process, we show what data must be provided by the project developers, and what assumptions are accepted by the certification agencies. We then discuss whether we believe these assumptions, consulting the literature to validate them. Based on this analysis, we determine if the sector appears to be promising for high-certainty offsets. If so, we search for specific offsets to recommend. If we determine that a sector is not promising, that does not necessarily mean that there are no high-quality offsets in the sector. But given our limited research resources, we have simply concentrated our search for offsets on what we consider to be the most promising sectors. We are open to finding high-quality offsets in all sectors, and will even consider offsets in less promising sectors if they seem to be of exceptional quality. Offset ratings After performing sector-level analyses, we then analyze and rate specific offsets in promising sectors. We searched for offsets to consider by searching publicly-available websites selling offsets, as well as offset registries. We concentrated our search among offsets that were easy to purchase online and where detailed information on the projects they support was available online. We rated offsets using five main categories: causality, project-level additionality, marginal additionality, permanence, and co-benefits. These are summarized in the below table. For each offset that we analyze, we rate each of these categories as ‘ High ’, ‘ Medium ’, or ‘ Low ’. In order to be recommended, offset projects need to make a compelling overall case that purchasing the offsets reduces emissions. However, they do not have to score highly in all categories to do this. We elaborate on this in our explanations of each metric below. Causality Causality refers to the extent to which the project actually causes reduced GHGs in the atmosphere. Determination of causality comes from understanding the “counterfactual”, which is what the state of the world would have been like without the project. However, this can be difficult to determine. For instance, consider a project that protects an area of jungle from being deforested. Determining causality requires answering two questions. First, does avoiding deforestation lead to reduced GHGs? This is a purely scientific question, which can be answered by consulting the literature. It is well-established that cutting down a forest leads to more GHGs in the atmosphere, since the trees no longer absorb CO2, and they eventually decompose, emitting CO2 in the process. This part of causality is relatively easy to establish in this example. Secondly, would the trees would have been cut down in the absence of the project? If not, then the project is not avoiding emissions. This is more difficult, as it is not possible to know with certainty what would have happened without the project. Offset projects must make the case that their project leads to fewer trees being cut down, and they generally use data concerning deforestation rates before the project or in similar areas. This type of analysis is difficult for an offset certifier to validate, especially since the project developer has an incentive to exaggerate the amount of causality. Causality is central to an offset being valid, and an offset must have high certainty of causality to be recommended by Giving Green. In cases (such as the forestry example) where changes in human behavior are needed to guarantee causality, Giving Green requires evidence from a rigorous impact evaluation to validate this behavior change. A rigorous impact evaluation provides a convincing measurement of the counterfactual, and calculates the change in GHGs compared to this counterfactual scenario. Project-level additionality An offset satisfies project-level additionality if the project it is supporting would not happen without the sales of offsets. This requirement tends to be satisfied for projects run by non-profits who solely rely on offset revenue in order to operate. However, it can be very difficult to determine for projects with multiple revenue streams. For instance, consider a wind energy project that is considering selling carbon offsets. In many markets, wind energy is cost-competitive with other kinds of energy, and wind energy plants are built and profitable without the need for carbon offsets. In this case, a wind energy project does not satisfy project-level additionality. However, in other markets, a wind energy plant may not be profitable, and therefore would not have been built without an additional revenue stream from offsets. In this case, the offsets would have project-level additionality. The problem is that in a case like this, it is very difficult to verify the actual financial circumstances of the project. In order to get certified, project developers need to provide a financial model where they show that with offset revenue they would be profitable, but without the offsets they would not be. However, the projections of future flows of costs and revenues necessary for such a model rely on a significant amount of guesswork. Additionally, project developers have huge incentives to make a case for additionality. The offset certifiers likely have no way to validate these models, and also must rely on their own guesswork to decide if they believe the project developers’ case. In our assessments at Giving Green, we accept claims of project-level additionality only when projects rely on offsets for most or all of their revenue stream, or when offsets are crucial to raising private sector capital. Also, the project must not be required by regulations. That being said, we may recommend projects that do not satisfy project-level additionality if they satisfy marginal additionality, as described below. Marginal additionality A project satisfies marginal additionality if each additional offset purchased leads to more GHGs being reduced. This is an important requirement for offsets to work as advertised: the purchase of every single offset must cause extra GHG reduction. To explain the difference between project-level additionality and marginal additionality, we will use a few examples. Consider a landfill gas capture project. In areas where they are not required by law, landfill gas projects generally satisfy project-level additionality since there are no economic incentives besides offset revenues to build them. In general, the project developer foots the bill for the up-front costs of building the system, and then recoups these costs by selling offsets for the emissions avoided each year. Taking the concept very literally, no offsets generated from this project actually have marginal additionality, since the project has already been built. But given that the project was likely built only due to the expectation of being able to sell offsets, one could argue that offsets sold shortly after the project are really contributing to reduced GHGs. The issue is that the project developer can sell offsets as long as the gas collection system is still operational, and this may continue long after the project costs are paid off. After project costs (including opportunity costs) are covered, additional offset revenue just goes to pad the profits of the project developer. Additional offsets absolutely do not contribute to additional reduced GHGs. The opposite can also be true: projects can have marginal additionality without having project-level additionality. For instance, consider a for-profit provider of clean cookstoves. The company may have a viable business model, and would exist and sell cookstoves even if offsets were not available. Therefore, they do not exhibit project-level additionality. However, if they do sell offsets, this allows them to lower their prices, therefore selling more stoves. In this case, each additional offset can contribute to additional lowering of stove costs, resulting in more stoves being sold. Therefore, the offsets satisfy marginal additionality. A significant factor determining whether projects have marginal additionality, is whether they have ongoing activities that can continually be ramped up to remove more emissions, versus being composed of a single large project. For example, a cookstove manufacturer can always use offset revenue to distribute more cookstoves, but a large landfill gas capture project generally can not just expand its operations. Also, a project developer that makes profits is less likely to satisfy marginal additionality, since any offset revenue going to profits cannot be additional. Another factor that can play into marginal additionality is profits. If the project developer is a for-profit company and is actually booking profits above the opportunity costs of its founders and investors, this is a reason to question marginal additionality. This is because in this case, additional offset purchases simply increase profits and are unrelated to decreasing GHG emissions. At Giving Green, we view marginal additionality to be critical to the validity of an offset, though we admit it can sometimes be difficult to ascertain. We need to have high confidence in the marginal additionality of an offset to be able to recommend it. Note that this is a higher bar than required by the offset certifiers, whose definition of additionality only includes project-level additionality. Permanence An offset provides permanent emissions reduction if there is no chance of undoing the project’s activities. In projects that avoid emissions, this is frequently satisfied in a trivial manner. For instance, if a project incinerates a refrigerant, the GHG is destroyed and emissions are avoided permanently. But permanence can be more difficult to establish for forestry or other land-use projects. For instance, consider an offset project that prevents a portion of forest from being logged. These gains can be completely undone if, in the future, the jungle is logged or burns down. This is known as a “reversal”. Offset certifiers have tried to deal with this risk by requiring project developers to keep a certain percentage of offsets unsold in a so-called “buffer pool”. This acts as insurance, and is drawn down when there are demonstrated reversals. But it is difficult to be certain if reversals will actually be reported in the future, and if there will be enough offsets in the buffer pool. For instance, by some estimates , the size of the buffer pool in the offset scheme in California’s cap and trade is insufficient due to increased fire risk. Giving Green views permanence as an important component of an offset’s validity, and therefore we need a high degree of certainty in permanence to recommend an offset. However, since land-use projects are important and it is impossible to completely verify permanence for these, we may recommend projects with some permanence uncertainty as long as strong, proven methods are put in place to guard against reversals. Co-benefits Some offset projects offer additional benefits besides GHG reductions, known as “co-benefits”. For instance, these could include improving the income of poor families, or improving biodiversity. Giving Green only uses GHG reductions to determine which offsets to recommend, and therefore it is not necessary for an offset to have co-benefits to gain our recommendation. However, as many offset purchasers would like to buy offsets with co-benefits, we highlight them in the analysis of our recommended offsets.

Direct Air Capture // BACK This report was last updated in October 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. Summary Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most abundant greenhouse gas (GHG) in our atmosphere. To combat the worst effects of climate change, we need to reduce the amount of CO2 that we produce. However, we will also need to remove the CO2 that already exists or will be difficult to abate in the near term. An important avenue for removing CO2 is direct air capture (DAC) . This is a process wherein a machine pulls CO2 from the surrounding air and, in many cases, permanently stores that CO2 underground to prevent it from contributing to warming our planet. Giving Green primarily recommends that individuals direct their donations to organizations pushing for policy change : the more CO2 mitigated, the less we have to remove via CDR. However, for individuals and businesses who prefer their donations to support immediate and certain GHG removal, we recommend one direct air capture firm, Climeworks , which offers a subscription service for individuals to support carbon removal directly from its website. DAC as a carbon "offset" DAC is part of the larger suite of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) solutions, both technological and biological, that remove carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. CDR is distinct from carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS) , which generally refers to processes that capture concentrated CO2 at the source of emission, e.g. via a collector placed at the top of a smokestack, and the use of carbon captured in this manner. While a CCUS project reduces emissions after its installation and at the specific facility at which it is installed, at best resulting in a net zero facility, CDR projects do not need to be tied to an emitting facility and, if scaled widely, can result in net negative emissions; technological CDR methods are also referred to as negative emissions technologies (NETs). Thus, CDR has great promise in addressing the CO2 already in the atmosphere, or CO2 that will be emitted in the future from “hard to abate” sectors which are technologically or economically difficult to decarbonize. In the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC , released in 2018, “all analysed pathways limiting warming to 1.5ºC with no or limited overshoot use CDR to some extent”. However, CDR comes with challenges: carbon dioxide is much more dilute in the atmosphere than it is in a smokestack, making it difficult and often expensive to capture: for instance, forestry requires large amounts of land, and DAC requires large amounts of energy. We believe, as do most people working in the CDR space, that GHG mitigation should be our first priority, and that CDR is a necessity to reduce GHG levels beyond what mitigation alone can accomplish and avert the worst impacts of climate change. This report focuses on DAC projects as opposed to other types of CDR (forestry, soil carbon, enhanced weathering, etc) or other types of CCUS. DAC projects will typically use the harvested CO2 for commercial purposes or inject it underground with the sole intent of permanently removing it from the atmosphere. Projects that sequester CO2 are sometimes referred to as direct air capture and storage (DACS) or direct air carbon capture and sequestration (DACCS). Some of these projects inject the CO2 under thick layers of rocks to prevent it from leaking out. Others inject it into geological formations that react with the CO2 and turn it into a solid, thereby preventing it from leaking back into the atmosphere. Mechanism Giving Green generally prefers carbon removal projects to avoided emissions projects. DAC with sequestration is considered carbon removal. DAC without sequestration has elements of both avoidance and removal. In such projects, the CO2 may be sold as a commodity and replace CO2 that would otherwise have been produced for that commercial purpose, e.g. to provide the bubbles in a can of soda, or may be converted into another usable form, such as “carbon neutral” fuel. We focus primarily on DACS in this report, as causality and additionality claims are more complex when carbon is utilized and not sequestered. Causality There are a few elements to establishing causality of DACS projects (i.e., that the project directly leads to reduced atmospheric GHGs): Successful removal of carbon from the atmosphere Successful sequestration Minimal leakage of CO2 Minimal carbon intensity of energy required Byproducts of sequestration Successful removal of carbon from the atmosphere: DAC projects are technically difficult. Capturing CO2 from the air requires advanced technology that is in its early stages of development. Successful sequestration: DAC projects also need to show that they have sequestered the CO2 they captured, generally by injecting it underground. Minimal leakage of CO2: Even after CO2 has been sequestered, it may can leak back into the atmosphere. Many projects inject CO2 into geological formations from which it is unlikely to leak, such as underneath impermeable rocks. However, this is not foolproof; projects should have a method for tracking and preventing leakage from their sequestration sites. Minimal carbon intensity of energy required: The process of removing CO2 from the atmosphere and then sequestering it underground is energy intensive and, currently, fairly inefficient. While some amount of investment in this process should happen to increase the efficiency of the technology, the energy cost of running the DAC machines, and the carbon associated with producing that energy, must be considered against claimed GHG reductions. Byproducts of Sequestration: One method of sequestering CO2 is to inject it into oil wells to extract oil that cannot be extracted using normal means. This procedure is known as Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR), and since EOR is by far the most valuable use for carbon dioxide, much of captured carbon is used for it. Whether or not EOR results in more or fewer emissions is a source of great controversy in the environmental community. If carbon sequestration is part of the production process, it can decrease the carbon footprint of oil. However, carbon capture may increase emissions in the long run by extending oil production beyond what would otherwise be financially tenable. Some reporting alleges that, of tax credits claimed for sequestration in the US under what is known as Section 45Q, 85-90% were used for OER, but only 5% were reported to the EPA for verification of said sequestration. Due to this uncertainty around EOR’s true climate impact, Giving Green does not recommend offsets that use DAC for EOR. Project-level additionality The CCUS market, which is much more mature than the DAC market, does not rely on revenue from carbon credits. Instead, the captured CO2 is primarily resold for other commercial uses (e.g. EOR or carbonated beverages). But DACS projects that sequester the carbon without commercial gain are likely to rely almost entirely on revenue from carbon credits or philanthropy. We see the market for DACS carbon credits as important for encouraging the growth of this industry and in funding specific projects to remove GHGs. The cost of DACS currently far exceeds the amount of money that comes in through carbon credits, meaning that most funding still comes from private capital looking for commercial uses or for eventual profits from carbon credits. We believe that most DACS projects would not continue in the absence of the ability to sell carbon credits as a whole; however, it is hard to directly tie your specific credit purchase to the viability of a given project. We thus view the additionality of most of these projects as mixed. Marginal additionality DAC projects have large up-front capital costs and large operational costs (such as electricity). DAC projects must keep a steady flow of revenue coming in to pay these operational costs, and therefore additional money from carbon credit purchases theoretically allows them to run the machines for more time. Also, some DAC projects are modular, so additional funds can be used to expand the system to capture more carbon. Since there is a very plausible path from additional offsets to additional carbon removed, most DAC projects score highly on marginal additionally. Permanence When CO2 is captured and successfully sequestered with a low likelihood of leakage, the permanence of this process is high. Projects in this sector have varying levels of permanence. We are skeptical of geologic sequestration and worry that the CO2 will eventually leak into the atmosphere. However, some projects use natural geological processes to convert the CO2 into a rock form. We see these projects as highly permanent. Co-benefits DAC projects do not tend to offer co-benefits. Cost-effectiveness Compared to other sectors, the expenses required to avoid or remove emissions through DAC are substantial. A significant part of these costs can be attributed to the relatively young technology that is expensive to engineer and maintain. We believe that the cost of DAC has the potential to drop sharply over time given enough support (e.g. via the purchase of carbon credits). For many technologies, a decrease in cost is observed as cumulative output of that technology increases; this empirical observation is referred to as technological learning. While the cost reduction happens via a variety of mechanisms, the core observation is that cumulative experience with a technology results in “learning-by-doing”, which over time, increases efficiency and lowers cost. Learning is greater in competitive industries and modular technologies, so modular forms of DAC may have higher potential for today’s funds to support quick learning. We explore this dynamic in a model, published here . As examples of the expected price trajectory of DAC: Climeworks has a roadmap to achieve $200/ton ; Carbon Engineering projects costs of $94-$232/ton ; McQueen et al 2020 identify scenarios achieving <$300/tCO2; Fasihi et al 2019 review and recalculate estimate from prior studies to find a range of $99-$388/tCO2; the US National Academies of Sciences assesses the potential costs of various DAC systems in depth and finds as low as $89/ton to be feasible; Lackner and Azarabadi describe a pathway to $100/ton for modular DAC systems. Giving Green’s Assessment of DAC While expensive relative to other carbon offsets, we see DAC projects as one of the most certain ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. We recommend one DAC project: Climeworks . Select Resources “Background Information about Geologic Sequestration.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 6 Sept. 2016, www.epa.gov/uic/background-information-about-geologic-sequestration . “The Concept of Geologic Carbon Sequestration.” USGS , Mar. 2011, pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3122/pdf/FS2010-3122.pdf . Brennan, S.T., Burruss, R.C., Merrill, M.D., Freeman, P.A., and Ruppert, L.F., 2010, A probabilistic assessment methodology for the evaluation of geologic carbon dioxide storage: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1127 . Sundquist, Eric, Burruss, Robert, Faulkner, Stephen, Gleason, Robert, Harden, Jennifer, Kharaka, Yousif, Tieszen, Larry, and Waldrop, Mark, 2008, Carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2008– 3097. “What’s the Difference between Geologic and Biologic Carbon Sequestration?” What's the Difference between Geologic and Biologic Carbon Sequestration?, 2020, www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-s-difference-between-geologic-and-biologic-carbon-sequestration . Douglas W. Duncan and Eric A. Morrissey. “The Concept of Geologic Carbon Sequestration, Fact Sheet 2010-3122.” USGS Publications Warehouse, 2010, pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3122/ . “CCS Explained.” UKCCSRC, 13 Dec. 2019, ukccsrc.ac.uk/ccs-explained/ . Roberts, David. “Pulling CO2 out of the Air and Using It Could Be a Trillion-Dollar Business.” Vox, Vox, 4 Sept. 2019, www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/9/4/20829431/climate-change-carbon-capture-utilization-sequestration-ccu-ccs . “Geologic Sequestration in Deep Saline Aquifers.” Geologic Sequestration in Deep Saline Aquifers | EARTH 104: Earth and the Environment (Development), 2020, www.e-education.psu.edu/earth104/node/1094 . “Sequestration Map MIT.” Google Maps JavaScript, sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/ccs_map.html . Elliott, Rebecca. “Carbon Capture Wins Fans Among Oil Giants.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 12 Feb. 2020, www.wsj.com/articles/carbon-capture-is-winning-fans-among-oil-giants-11581516481 . Kintisch, Eli. “Can Sucking CO2 Out of the Atmosphere Really Work?” MIT Technology Review, MIT Technology Review, 2 Apr. 2020, www.technologyreview.com/2014/10/07/171023/can-sucking-co2-out-of-the-atmosphere-really-work/ . Peters, Adele. “We Have the Tech to Suck CO2 from the Air–but Can It Suck Enough to Make a Difference?” Fast Company, Fast Company, 17 June 2019, www.fastcompany.com/90356326/we-have-the-tech-to-suck-co2-from-the-air-but-can-it-suck-enough-to-make-a-difference . Rogelj, J., et al. Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5°C in the Context of Sustainable Development. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. 2018. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-2/ . Lackner, K. S., & Azarabadi, H. (2021). Buying down the Cost of Direct Air Capture. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 60(22), 8196–8208. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.0c04839 . National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. “Direct Air Capture.” In: Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda. The National Academies Press, 2019. https://www.nap.edu/read/25259/chapter/7 .

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.

How to Think Beyond Net Zero // BACK Pressure is mounting for companies to develop and implement climate strategies. This call to action comes from a growing list of both internal and external stakeholders – employees, investors, customers, civil society, other companies, government, and more. And, increasingly, climate strategies are being scrutinized to ensure good faith, viability, and adherence to rigorous standards. As a result of this scrutiny, more companies are looking to go beyond conventional approaches to elevate true impact over ineffectual claims. Instead of assuming conventional frameworks like "net-zero" are optimal, we explore the following question: given a set of available resources, how can a business maximize its climate impact? This new framing allows for nuance, creativity, and the reality that, in some instances, carbon accounting may limit the impact of a company’s strategy. While each company will inevitably face its own set of challenges and constraints when devising a climate plan, it will also have a unique set of opportunities. In this white paper, we provide 4 concrete, high-impact strategies your business can take to maximize its climate impact. Download our white paper, How to Think Beyond Net Zero: How To Think Beyond Net Zero - 2024 .pdf Download PDF • 4.68MB 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 .

BlueGreen Alliance Foundation // BACK Overview The Giving Green Fund plans to award a restricted grant to the BlueGreen Alliance Foundation (BGAF) . This is one of a series of grants to support an ecosystem of nonprofits working to expand and decarbonize domestic industrial production through increased public and private investment and trade policy that favors cleaner industrial material imports. While most of BGAF’s work is focused on US stakeholders, markets, and policies, we think these efforts, when combined with trade policies such as a carbon border adjustment mechanism, can have a global impact. This falls within our philanthropic strategy of decarbonizing heavy industry. please see Giving Green’s deep dive report on decarbonizing heavy industry 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 BlueGreen Alliance Foundation (BGAF)? The BlueGreen Alliance Foundation (BGAF) is a U.S.-based 501(c)(3) organization founded in 2006. Its mission is to align the interests of labor unions and environmental organizations to solve today’s climate and other environmental problems in ways that create and maintain quality jobs and build a clean, thriving, and equitable economy. The BlueGreen Alliance Foundation works with the BlueGreen Alliance (BGA)—a national partnership that unites labor unions and environmental organizations around job-creating climate and environmental solutions—to achieve its mission. BGA’s membership currently includes 14 of the largest U.S. labor unions and environmental groups. Why are we funding BGAF, and how could it help reduce emissions? We think successful industrial policy in the US will depend heavily on engagement and support from labor unions. We believe this to be especially true in the context of trade policy such as a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), for which bipartisan momentum is building. Given the potential for a CBAM to grow domestic industrial production and jobs, we think BGAF’s strong partnerships with labor unions position it to be a driving force behind CBAM design and advocacy. Its work includes: Ensuring federal investments realize their potential benefits for workers and communities. BGAF conducts administrative advocacy, educational support, and technical assistance to ensure the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) industrial investments achieve transformative emissions reduction, jobs, and equity goals. It is also working to build support for new investments in transforming key heavy-emitting industries like steel, aluminum, and cement. Scaling federal and state procurement policy: The Federal Buy Clean Initiative brings together the federal agencies responsible for 90% of government procurement to incorporate the associated emissions of products, including industrial materials, into procurement processes and policies. This initiative also includes federal-state partnerships. BGAF is working to ensure that the relevant funding and programs within the Inflation Reduction Act are disbursed and implemented fully and strategically to lay a solid foundation from which the Federal Buy Clean Initiative can build. Advancing strategic trade policy : BGAF educates stakeholders and policymakers about the climate, economic, and equity benefits of a strategically designed tariff on high-carbon-intensity imports, including industrial products. Several pieces of legislation have been introduced proposing variants of a CBAM, and BGAF believes that it is a critical time to focus efforts on this policy opportunity. Building a pro-jobs and climate narrative : BGAF thinks increased support for existing and future climate policies can be built, in part, through efforts to highlight their positive effects on job creation and community revitalization. To this end, BGAF is building a narrative to demonstrate the economic possibilities made possible by green industrial policy.5 Why do we think BGAF will use this funding well? Given BGAF’s strong track record and partnerships, especially with respect to developing and advocating for Buy Clean policies, we think it is uniquely positioned to influence policies that strengthen the domestic economy, expand job opportunities, and reduce heavy industry emissions. Overall, we think BGAF’s efforts can broaden support for critical policies such as public procurement and tariffs. 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. BlueGreen Alliance Foundation is a 501(c)(3) entity and BlueGreen Alliance is a 501(c)(4) entity. 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 the BlueGreen Alliance Foundation, and not the BlueGreen Alliance. This is a nonpartisan analysis (study or research) and is provided for educational purposes.