Search Results

Our research on Evergreen Collaborative's work to advance climate policy and implementation. Evergreen Collaborative: Deep Dive // BACK This deep dive was last updated in November 2022, in advance of releasing the list of Giving Green’s 2022 top climate nonprofit recommendations, which included Evergreen Collaborative. Evergreen Collaborative was not included in Giving Green’s 2023 list of top climate nonprofit recommendations. That being said, it is our impression that Evergreen Collaborative continues to do strong work and has continued to produce impressive achievements. For donors interested in supporting US policy work, we still believe that Evergreen Collaborative would be an excellent choice. The reason for removing Evergreen Collaborative from our 2023 list derives from a changing political landscape in the US and a shift in research priorities at Giving Green. We first recommended Evergreen Collaborative in 2021, primarily based on the strength of its contributions to federal legislation, during a time when Giving Green felt that there was a unique opportunity to pass federal climate legislation in the US. After the passage of major climate bills in 2021-2022 (IIJA and IRA), the legislative window for climate policy in the US seems to have mostly closed. Therefore, many advocacy groups in the US (including Evergreen Collaborative) have shifted their strategies to center implementation, regulation, and state-level policy. While these are important activities, the landscape is different enough from federal legislation that evaluating effective nonprofits in this context would first require us to conduct new research to assess the general impact strategy. Although we considered conducting this research, our 2023 research prioritization moved us in a different direction, toward advocacy targeting specific sectors and technologies. Given that Evergreen Collaborative’s work does not fall into the impact strategies we prioritized in our 2023 research, we did not fully reassess it. Therefore, it was not included in our list of 2023 top climate nonprofits. Table of Contents Executive Summary Overview Giving Green’s Research History of Evergreen Collaborative Historical Perspective Evergreen Collaborative’s Organization Budget and room for more funding Evergreen Collaborative’s Tactics Timing policies to the political climate Coordinating efforts with other climate organizations Evergreen Collaborative’s Activities and Outcomes Evergreen Collaborative’s Theory of Change – In Depth Inputs Groups Outputs Examining the Assumptions behind Evergreen Collaborative’s Theory of Change Evergreen Collaborative’s cost-effectiveness Key open questions and uncertainties Conclusion Appendix: 2021 Cost Effectiveness Analysis Overview Methods Executive Summary In this document, we provide a descriptive overview of Evergreen Collaborative’s activities and assess the organization’s marginal impact. Based on our assessment, we believe that Evergreen Collaborative is cost-effective and will likely reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In 2021 we focused our initial analysis on Evergreen Collaborative’s work on federal legislative advocacy given that the organization centered its 2021 and 2022 efforts on US federal climate legislation. Evergreen successfully advocated for many initiatives that were included in the IRA such as clean energy tax credits, the green bank, and environmental justice block grants. Following the 2022 passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) , Evergreen Collaborative is now planning to work on implementing bills and state-level policy, and influencing the Biden Administration and federal agencies to take further action on climate. We are cautiously optimistic that Evergreen Collaborative will be impactful in these areas as well given the organization’s track record of success and emphasis on timing its work to what is most politically tractable. Based on Evergreen Collaborative’s accomplishments, organizational strengths, strategic approach, and cost-effectiveness, we classify Evergreen Collaborative as one of our top recommendations Overview Evergreen Collaborative is a left-of-center insider policy advocacy group that was founded by former staffers of Washington State Governor Jay Inslee’s 2020 presidential campaign. It designs and advocates for policy proposals while working alongside like-minded environmental organizations such as the Sunrise Movement and the Big Greens (e.g., large and well-funded environmental groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund). By working on policy advocacy and pooling resources with other organizations, Evergreen Collaborative seeks to influence Congress, the Executive Branch, and the states. Evergreen Collaborative has developed blueprints and fact sheets for policy proposals such as the vehicle electrification , housing retrofits , clean energy tax credits , A National Roadmap for Clean Buildings , 6 Ways President Biden Can Use Executive Action to Take on the Climate Crisis, and Meeting the Moment: How President Biden Can Align the Federal Fossil Fuel Program to Deliver on Climate and Put People Over Profits . Giving Green's Research We researched Evergreen Collaborative by reviewing publicly available information on Evergreen Collaborative, speaking with representatives from the organization and multiple experts on decarbonization and US policy, and conducting cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Publicly available information on Evergreen Collaborative includes its website and various policy reports as well as media coverage of the organization. History of Evergreen Collaborative In early 2019, Washington state governor Jay Inslee ran for US President under a platform that centered on climate action. After he left the presidential race in August 2019, he turned his climate policy plan into an open-source document. This policy plan became a springboard for Evergreen Collaborative and Evergreen Action , which are sister organizations founded in early 2020 by former Inslee campaign staffers. Evergreen Collaborative is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization in the United States. primarily conducts policy development. As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, Evergreen Action lobbies for Evergreen Collaborative’s policies. As Giving Green is part of IDinsight Inc., which is itself a charitable, tax-exempt organization, we are only offering an opinion on the charitable activities of Evergreen Collaborative, and not on Evergreen Action In this report, we occasionally refer to Evergreen Collaborative and Evergreen Action collectively as Evergreen. Since its founding, Evergreen has focused its efforts on supporting policies that aim to power the economy with 100% clean energy, invest in jobs, support environmental justice, transition the US from fossil fuels, and influence US leadership to confront climate change. Historical Perspective At the time that Evergreen was founded, Republicans controlled the White House and the Senate. This majority control made it challenging for Democrats to pass climate-related legislation at the federal level; according to numerous experts, many environmental organizations shifted their focus from federal legislation to state legislation during this time. After the 2020 election, several months after Evergreen was founded, Democrats gained a government trifecta – albeit with only very narrow control in the Senate. This opened up an opportunity for Democrats to take climate action through legislation and executive orders. Evergreen was able to capitalize on the political moment by substantially influencing both proposed and enacted legislation. After the passage of the IRA and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) , Evergreen plans to pivot away from legislative advocacy and devote more resources toward implementation, executive actions, and state-level work. Evergreen Collaborative’s Organization Evergreen’s staff and advisory board includes about 40 people, many of whom have prior experience in federal and state policy. Its advisory board includes members of well-known environmental organizations such as the BlueGreen Alliance, the US Climate Action Network, and Earth Uprising. Its board also includes several people highly involved in environmental justice groups such as the Hip Hop Caucus, the Sunrise Movement, and the ReGenesis Project. Budget and room for more funding When Evergreen was only a team of three people, its initial budget was about $1 million. Last year, it grew its budget to $3 million. About three-quarters of this funding is for Evergreen Collaborative’s 501(c)(3) fund, while the remaining quarter is for Evergreen Action’s 501(c)(4) fund. Evergreen uses its 501(c)(3) funding predominately for policy development (e.g., drafting memos for executive action and designing legislation) and state-level work. It uses its 501(c)(4) funding for lobbying, advocacy for specific bills, and communication such as its email program and social media channels. For example, in 2021, Evergreen used about half a million dollars from its 501(c)(4) funds to advocate for the Clean Energy Performance Program (CEPP) to a broad audience via television commercials. Evergreen’s 2022 budget is $5 million, but it would like it to grow to $7.5 million to increase capacity for its priority projects. In particular, it would like to expand its capacity to ensure that it can work closely with the Treasury on rulemaking. In addition, Evergreen outlined 6 ways that the Biden Administration could use executive actions , but it only has dedicated staff working on one of these pathways – the power sector. It would like to expand capacity to include more dedicated staff working on the other areas. Evergreen Collaborative’s Tactics Timing policies to the political climate Evergreen Collaborative’s strategy is to carefully time its policy communication to the political climate. For example, when President Joseph Biden won the White House and it seemed likely that Democrats would lose the Senate, Evergreen Collaborative released a list of President Biden’s proposed executive orders for combating climate change within days of the final election results. Evergreen Collaborative compiled these executive orders as a means to advocate for climate action outside of legislation; its work on calling attention to this path received media coverage through NPR’s Morning Edition . Additionally, Evergreen Collaborative developed lists of five key action items 21 different government agencies should each take on climate as the names of each agency’s potential appointees were released to the public. This was a gap in climate advocacy that other environmental groups had not filled. Evergreen Collaborative converted its original plan for a “100% Clean Energy by 2035” Clean Energy Standard (CES) into the CEPP when it became clear that given the Democrat’s very narrow control of the Senate would necessitate a structure that could pass through reconciliation. Although this particular piece of legislation was not included in the IRA, it helped set a benchmark for ambition and the level of spending in the electricity sector. Evergreen also advocated for initiatives that were included in the final bill such as EJ block grants, the green bank, and clean energy tax credits. Finally, Evergreen consistently helped shape the narrative in the media during the recent development of climate legislation as well as in response to other climate policy news. [1] According to Evergreen, the organization will still be effective if Democrats lose the government trifecta after the 2022 midterm elections. This is marked by a change in strategy as Evergreen shifts its focus away from passing federal legislation and instead works on (i) IIJA and IRA implementation, (ii) executive actions, (iii) state-level policy and implementation, and (iv) opportunities for federal legislation like the 2023 Farm Bill. Coordinating efforts with other climate organizations Evergreen Collaborative coordinates multiple actors by acting as connective tissue between diverse environmental organizations. For example, it has worked on the big picture of climate policy with the Big Greens and has also collaborated with the Sunrise Movement on developing a Civilian Climate Corps. It is also involved in an electrification coalition alongside other groups such as RMI, Rewiring America, and various environmental justice groups. Importantly, Evergreen led weekly calls on the CEPP with approximately 50 attendees from various groups, including large national organizations such as the League of Conservation Voters, the National Wildlife Federation, and the Environmental Defense Fund in addition to regional groups such as the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. Although the CEPP did not pass, the coalition that Evergreen built evolved into an ongoing 100% clean energy network that continues to push for shared power sector goals. Evergreen Collaborative’s Activities and Outcomes Evergreen Collaborative developed the original idea for the CEPP; it was initially in Governor Inslee’s climate action plan as the “2035 Clean Energy Standard” (CES) and its goal of 80% clean energy by 2030 was later adopted by President Biden. [2] Next, Evergreen Collaborative converted the CES into the CEPP, which could be passed through reconciliation. Additionally, Evergreen built an ecosystem of support around the CEPP that made it easier for other organizations to plug into efforts that would help develop and advocate for the CEPP. Finally, Evergreen Action directly lobbied committee staff about the CEPP and also worked on an almost daily basis with legislators throughout 2021 to help them design the CEPP. Several experts we spoke to agreed that without Evergreen, the CEPP is unlikely to have been developed and that if it had been, it would not have received nearly as much attention. Although the CEPP was not ultimately included in the IRA, it built momentum for power sector policy. Evergreen has also strongly advocated for clean energy tax credits , initially through the Clean Energy for America Act (CEAA). While this did not pass as stand-alone legislation, Evergreen continued its advocacy for the inclusion of similar tax credits and structures into the IRA. In its final form, the IRA includes about $30 billion in clean energy tax credits. [3] Evergreen Collaborative has also contributed to blueprints, fact sheets, and media coverage on policy proposals regarding issues such as vehicle electrification , housing retrofits , and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (green bank). [4] Provisions related to all of these initiatives were included in the IRA. Although unable to secure the inclusion of the Civilian Climate Corps in the IRA, Evergreen successfully advocated for environmental justice initiatives that were included in the legislation such as the Climate and Environmental Justice Block Grants. [5] Moving forward, Evergreen has transitioned its strategy to reflect the climate policy landscape after the passage of the IRA. It has identified four major initiatives: implementing the IIJA and IRA, pushing the administration to take further climate action, working on state policy and implementation, and remaining active in contributing to further federal legislative climate opportunities such as the forthcoming Farm Bill. Our Take on Evergreen Collaborative’s Theory of Change – In Depth Evergreen Collaborative reduces GHGs from the atmosphere by influencing policymakers and regulators via its policy workstream and coalition building. We illustrate a simple theory of change in Figure 1. Figure 1: Our take on Evergreen Collaborative’s theory of change Inputs Evergreen Collaborative pushes climate policies forward by designing policies, strategically communicating its work, and coordinating advocacy efforts. Evergreen Collaborative’s policy work includes writing policy proposals and model bills and also strategizing ways to advance its proposals. In terms of coordination, Evergreen Collaborative works with organizations across the climate movement, including Big Greens. By working in consortium with like-minded organizations, Evergreen Collaborative helps the organizations share their expertise with one another and coordinate their efforts around policy development and advocacy. This in turn helps inform parts of Evergreen Collaborative’s own policy workstream. Ultimately, Evergreen Collaborative uses its advocacy and the advocacy of its partner organizations to apply pressure on Congress, the Executive Branch, and states to take climate action. Additionally, Evergreen’s 501(c)(4) arm directly lobbies members of Congress, the Biden Administration, and states to advocate for policies that would combat the climate crisis. It is also responsible for Evergreen’s email program and social media. Groups Evergreen Collaborative advocates for certain policies based on the political climate. It therefore focuses on influencing different branches and levels of government (e.g. federal versus state) depending on what is most tractable at the time. Before the passage of the IRA, Evergreen Collaborative mostly focused on federal legislative outcomes. With the passage of the IRA, Evergreen now plans to focus less on legislative policy and more on bill implementation, executive actions, and state-level work. Outputs While we recognize Evergreen’s contributions to the IRA, we think it is highly unlikely to expect another broad, climate-focused package in the coming cycle. By continuing to apply pressure to federal legislators, Evergreen Collaborative can improve the likelihood of Congress passing further climate legislation, even if that comes in the form of smaller climate provisions in larger bills. Upcoming opportunities include potential climate provisions in the 2023 Farm Bill. Evergreen also applies pressure to the Biden Administration and federal agencies; these efforts are among Evergreen’s priorities moving forward. In this way Evergreen can ensure that bills are implemented effectively and also encourage agencies to commit to climate action steps . Evergreen can also encourage the President to take climate action through executive orders. Evergreen has done some of this work already through its “46 for 46” report as well as its paper 6 Ways President Biden Can Use Executive Action to Take on the Climate Crisis , which detail various executive actions President Biden can take to fight against climate change. In addition, Evergreen plans to expand its work to the state and regional levels. [6] It plans to support state and localities in navigating climate funding opportunities within the IIJA and IRA including the Climate Pollution Reduction Grants and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. We believe that its direct connections to governors’ offices in several states will increase the likelihood that Evergreen can substantially influence state-level policy and implementation. Examining the Assumptions behind Evergreen Collaborative’s Theory of Change Below, we discuss and evaluate the main assumptions related to Evergreen’s theory of change. For each of the assumptions, we rank whether we have low , medium , or high certainty about the assumption. Our assessment is based on both primary and secondary evidence, as well as our general impression of the plausibility of the assumption. [7] Importantly, a number of the stages of Evergreen’s theory of change may not be amenable to easy measurement or quantification, are not supported by a robust evidence base, or are expected to occur in the future but have not occurred as of yet. Policies that Evergreen Collaborative introduces enters the public discourse and are debated as parts of potential bills, regulations, and executive and state-level actions ( high certainty ). Evergreen Collaborative has a track record of developing policy proposals that gain traction. For example, both the CEPP and Civilian Climate Corps were co-developed by Evergreen Collaborative and have been widely covered in the media. 2. The policies that Evergreen Collaborative develops and advocates for will pass in the House and Senate ( medium certainty ). Evergreen has had mixed results. One of its main policy initiatives, the CEPP, was not included in the IRA as it was not palatable to more moderate members of the Democratic party. Evergreen successfully advocated for many initiatives that were included in the IRA such as clean energy tax credits, the green bank, and environmental justice block grants. In response to the passage of the IRA and the expectation that the political environment will be less amenable to further climate-focused legislation, Evergreen will no longer focus on federal legislation in the coming cycle. However, we do think it is possible that Evergreen may successfully influence the inclusion of climate provisions into broader pieces of legislation such as the upcoming Farm Bill. 3. Evergreen Collaborative can successfully influence the Biden Administration and federal agencies ( medium certainty ). Evergreen Collaborative wrote a plan for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to take action steps such as standardizing definitions of Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) . Since then, the SEC has developed a task force that will identify ESG-related misconduct; however, the role that Evergreen Collaborative had in this task force’s development is unclear. Evergreen also released a report card for the EPA identifying where the agency is falling behind on climate and air quality regulations as well as 6 Ways President Biden Can Use Executive and Legislative Action to Take on the Climate Crisis . 4. Evergreen Collaborative can successfully influence states ( medium certainty ). We are less familiar with Evergreen Collaborative’s work with states. Evergreen has committed much of its focus in the coming cycle to state-level initiatives. While Evergreen in its present form does not yet have as robust a track record on the state level, members of the team have worked on state-level policy and have maintained connections especially through governors’ offices. 5. After legislation is enacted, Evergreen Collaborative is an effective force for ensuring that it’s implemented in a meaningful way ( medium certainty ). As far as we know, Evergreen Collaborative has not yet conducted a significant amount of work on implementation of enacted legislation. However, this will become one of its main priorities over the coming cycle. We believe that Evergreen Collaborative will be successful given its depth of policy knowledge and experience, connections to federal and state-level policymakers, and strong media and social media presence. Evergreen Collaborative’s cost-effectiveness The cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) from 2021 (included in the Appendix) was based on the CEPP and CEAA. While many provisions from the CEAA were included in the IRA, the CEPP was not included. In addition, moving forward we project Evergreen’s main contributions to come from the implementation of the IRA. Given this, we do not find the 2021 CEA to remain relevant. Instead of entirely updating this analysis, we have made a back of the envelope calculation to estimate Evergreen’s cost-effectiveness in the context of IRA implementation. We have low confidence in the ability of this model to estimate Evergreen’s general cost-effectiveness due to uncertainty regarding the scope and efficacy of Evergreen’s influence on IRA implementation; as a result we had to use many highly subjective guess parameters. [8] Overall, we think Evergreen Collaborative could plausibly be within the range of cost-effectiveness we would consider for a top recommendation. [9] Cost-effectiveness of the IRA (estimate). We estimate the cost-effectiveness of the IRA to be about $60/tCO 2 e given that the climate provisions within the IRA constitute about $369 billion of investment and are projected to influence a cumulative ~6.3 billion tons of emissions reductions over the next decade. Evergreen’s influence on IRA implementation (guess). We then aggregate the provisions in the IRA that we believe Evergreen will attempt to impact (around $180 billion) and guess Evergreen’s level of influence on this amount. Cost-effectiveness of Evergreen. By projecting an annual budget of $7.5 million dollars, we estimate that $3.75 million dollars will go toward IRA implementation (since 2 out of 4 of Evergreen’s priorities are related to bill implementation) each year over the next decade. Choosing a conservative parameter for Evergreen’s probability of influence, we conclude that Evergreen’s cost-effectiveness, $4.88/tCO 2 , is within the range of our most cost-effective options. Key open questions and uncertainties Given that Evergreen has mostly focused on federal legislative policy development and advocacy, we are uncertain about its efficacy regarding bill implementation especially on the state level. Through conversations with Evergreen and other policy experts, we have understood small size and relative agility to be important traits behind Evergreen’s efficacy. We are uncertain if, or how much, growth of the organization will affect its nimbleness. Permitting reform has emerged as a contentious issue among climate advocates, and we are uncertain as to where Evergreen stands on the issue generally. While Evergreen came out strongly against Manchin’s permitting reform proposal, it is unclear whether Evergreen opposes that specific proposal or permitting reform more generally. [10] Conclusion Based on Evergreen Collaborative’s accomplishments, organizational strengths, strategic approach, and cost-effectiveness, we classify Evergreen Collaborative as one of our top recommendations. Regarding Evergreen’s cost-effectiveness, we acknowledge that this is neither guaranteed over time nor over its portfolio of work. Namely, it is unclear to us how Evergreen’s work moving forward (e.g., bill implementation, regulation, state policy) will compare to its legislative work in terms of impact and cost. These are aspects that we would like to explore further in the future. Nonetheless, we believe that Evergreen is a promising organization given its track record, agility, policy knowledge, sphere of influence, and emphasis on calibrating its work to the political climate. Appendix: 2021 Cost Effectiveness Analysis Overview We developed a simple CEA model that estimated Evergreen’s cost-effectiveness in reducing GHG emissions . Our model centered on the CEPP and CEAA tax credit extensions because of (1) Evergreen’s advocacy for both the CEPP and clean energy tax credits and (2) the combined proposals would help the US power sector reach close to Evergreen’s goal of 80% clean energy by 2030. Although Giving Green is only considering the 501(c)(3) Evergreen Collective for a recommendation, our CEA model is based on the combined activities of Evergreen Collective and the 501(c)(4) Evergreen Action. This is because the activities were interlinked, and both contribute to the impacts on climate, so it would be hard to model them separately. We modeled three scenarios (i.e. Pessimistic, Realistic, and Optimistic) that varied in terms of how much influence Evergreen has in getting a bill passed with either the CEPP or the CEAA tax credit extensions included. Based on how much CO2e it would reduce between 2022 and 2030, Evergreen is predicted (in expectation) to reduce emissions at a cost of about $0.54 per metric ton of CO2-equivalent (CO2e) under our Realistic scenario. In other words, our Realistic scenario predicts that Evergreen will reduce GHGs at a cost of about 1.9 metric tons of CO2e per dollar. These results should be viewed as rough, indicative estimates given the uncertainty in our different model inputs. Overall, our results suggest that Evergreen could be highly cost-effective in reducing GHG emissions. However, we do not believe that its cost-effectiveness is guaranteed. First, there are major points of uncertainty in our model, such as estimating Evergreen Collective’s influence on getting the CEPP and CEAA tax credit extensions passed, as well as the provisions’ ultimate impact on emissions. Also, our model only considers the current moment and Evergreen’s influence on Congress will likely be significantly reduced in years where Congress is not under Democratic control; this would in turn reduce Evergreen’s expected value. Finally, our model is not all-inclusive. Namely, we do not have cost-effectiveness estimates for Evergreen’s work on influencing the Executive Branch and regulators. We would like to investigate this further in the future. Regardless, we are cautiously optimistic that Evergreen will remain cost-effective in the future given its track record of success and its emphasis on timing its work to the political climate. Methods Background Both the CEAA and CEPP are policies that are intended to make the power sector cleaner. The CEAA is expected to bring the power sector to 69% clean energy by 2030. Combining the CEAA and the CEPP is expected to lead to 78% clean energy by 2030. Evergreen Action has played a pivotal role in developing the CEPP. It has played a much smaller role in advocating for the CEAA and tax credits in general. We use Resources for the Future ’s (RFF) projected emissions for our CEA model. Overview We illustrate our CEA’s steps in the flowchart below (Figure 3). Figure 3: Flow chart of Evergreen’s cost-effectiveness analysis model. Yellow, blue, and green rectangles represent inputs, outputs, and outcomes, respectively. Our model inputs included Evergreen’s spending on the CEPP and CEAA; reductions in power sector emissions because of the CEAA and CEPP; and the change in probability of a bill passing with either CEAA or CEPP due to Evergreen. We computed Evergreen’s expected value by multiplying either provision’s CO2e reduction relative to BAU by the change in probability of a bill passing with the provision due to Evergreen. We then used Evergreen’s expected value and its spending on the CEPP and CEAA to determine the cost per change in metric ton of CO2e. We used the reciprocal of this value to estimate the change in CO2e per dollar. We also input our CEA into a Guesstimate model , which allows us to set ranges for each input and uses a Monte Carlo simulation to estimate cost-effectiveness. Each metric included 5,000 samples. This simulation enabled us to account for uncertainty in each parameter by predicting many thousands of potential futures. Detailed overview Evergreen’s spending on the CEPP Evergreen estimates that it spent around $2 million to develop and advocate for the CEPP. We understand that around $500,000 of the spending was used on TV advertising from its 501(c)(4), and the remaining amount was from its 501(c)(3) fund and was used to model the CEPP, pay staff and consultants, and support digital advertising. We are unsure how much Evergreen spent on lobbying, which would come from its 501(c)(4) fund. Evergreen also spent $500,000 on advocating for clean energy tax credits and used both its 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) accounts for this. Power sector emissions We used a CEPP and CEAA model developed by Resources for the Future (RFF). The model’s 78% clean energy by 2030 plan was closely aligned with Evergreen’s plan for 80% clean energy by 2030 and 100% clean energy by 2035 . Estimates for CO2e emissions from the RFF model were similar to other CES/CEPP models analyzed by NRDC/EDF and other researchers . We focused on emissions from between 2022 and 2030 because (1) we believe that a bold climate provision such as the CEPP can only be passed while Democrats hold a government trifecta and (2) Democrats have held a government trifecta about once every ten years over the past four decades. Based on this pattern, we assumed that a proposal similar to the CEPP would not be proposed again until 2030 at the earliest. We used a range of eight years to be conservative in our estimates. Although RFF’s projected data extends to 2040, we do not consider emissions data past 2030 because we are unsure what BAU would look like so far out in the future; it seems plausible that the rising impacts of climate change would alter the US’ BAU strategy. Change in probability of a bill passing due to Evergreen The change in probability of a bill passing with the CEPP due to Evergreen was one of the most difficult values to estimate and is highly subjective. Because we were unsure how much Evergreen changed the likelihood of a bill passing with the CEPP, we examined three different scenarios that varied in probability (i.e., Pessimistic, Optimistic, and Realistic). To estimate our cases’ probabilities, we first assumed that Evergreen would have a positive impact on getting the bill passed and that its impact would be relatively small given the number of organizations that have been involved in developing and advocating for the CEPP. We therefore assumed that the Realistic case had a probability of 1% and used that value to anchor our estimates for the Pessimistic and Optimistic cases, which we set as 0.5% and 3%, respectively. We assumed that the probability of a bill passing with the CEAA due to Evergreen would be less than the probabilities we selected for the CEPP. This is because Evergreen put less emphasis on the CEAA relative to the CEPP. Ultimately, we selected probabilities that are a tenth of what we used for Evergreen’s influence on the CEPP; we used 0.05%, 0.1%, and 0.3% for the Pessimistic, Optimistic, and Realistic cases, respectively. Results The cost per change in CO2e is predicted to be $1.08, $0.54, and $0.18 for the Pessimistic, Realistic, and Optimistic scenarios, respectively. In terms of change in CO2e per dollar, this is about 0.93, 1.9, and 5.6 metric tons of CO2e per dollar. Per our example run of our Guesstimate model, the distribution of cost per change in metric ton of CO2e is right-skewed across the thousands of simulated futures (Figure 4). The mean and median cost per change in CO2e are $0.46 and $0.42 per metric ton of CO2e, respectively. In terms of change in CO2e per dollar, the mean and median are about 2.6 and 2.4 metric tons of CO2e, respectively. The 5th and 95th percentiles are about 1.2 and 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per dollar, respectively (Table 1). Figure 4: Histogram of cost per change in metric ton of CO2e. Values along the horizontal axis indicate the cost to remove one metric ton of CO2e from the atmosphere. The horizontal axis is truncated to the 1st and 99th percentiles. Table 1: Percentiles for change in CO2e per dollar Endnotes Evergreen Collaborative is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization in the United States. As Giving Green is part of IDinsight Inc., which is itself a charitable, tax-exempt organization, we are only offering an opinion on the charitable activities of Clean Air Task Force, and not on CATF Action. This is a non-partisan analysis (study or research) and is provided for educational purposes. [1] “ The analysis, which was conducted by the climate advocacy group Evergreen Action, examined whether the EPA is on track to finalize 10 power-sector regulations before the end of President Biden's first term.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/05/epa-is-falling-behind-power-plant-rules-report-says/ [2] According to an outside expert we spoke to, Evergreen played a role in getting the CES on President Biden’s campaign agenda. Namely, Governor Inslee’s staffers (now Evergreen) influenced Governor Inslee’s climate platform, which influenced Senator Bernie Sanders’ platform, which later influenced President Joe Biden after he spoke with Senator Sanders’ team about developing consensus positions on climate change during the 2020 presidential race. [3] “Among the many funding measures included in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) ( P.L. 117-169 ) that are geared toward combating climate change is the inclusion of $30 billion in clean energy tax credits for resources such as solar and wind energy and battery storage.” https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/clean-energy-tax-credits-get-a-boost-in-new-climate-law [4] “This is, I think, one of the most exciting and transformational investments and programs in this new law,” said Sam Ricketts, co-founder of the climate group Evergreen Action. “The importance of a national clean energy accelerator is that it’s a national entity, with a national mandate to finance these projects in every state.” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/11/green-bank-clean-energy-climate-change [5] “The Inflation Reduction Act includes historic investments in environmental justice, including establishing several new environmental justice grant programs.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/17/fact-sheet-inflation-reduction-act-advances-environmental-justice/ [6] The pivotal role for states in implementing the IRA. https://www.evergreenaction.com/blog/pivotal-role-for-states-in-implementing-the-ira [7] We describe our certainty as low/medium/high to increase readability and avoid false precision. Since these terms can be interpreted differently, we use rough heuristics to define them as percentage likelihoods the assumption is, on average, correct. Low = 0-70%, medium = 70-90%, high = 90-100%. [8] We describe our confidence as low/medium/high to increase readability and avoid false precision. Since these terms can be interpreted differently, we use rough heuristics to define them as percentage likelihoods our takeaway (i.e., [not] plausibly within the range of cost-effectiveness we would consider recommending) is correct. Low = 0-70%, medium = 70-90%, high = 90-100%. [9] As a heuristic to guide our research prioritization, we consider something to plausibly be within the range of cost-effectiveness we would consider for a top recommendation if its estimated cost-effectiveness is within an order of magnitude of $1/tCO2e (i.e., less than $10/tCO2e). [10] https://www.evergreenaction.com/press/evergreen-statement-on-permitting-reform-proposal

We chose Original Power as one of the most effective climate organisations. Read more about our decision. Original Power: Recommendation // BACK This report was last updated in December 2021. It may no longer be accurate, both with respect to the evidence it presents and our assessment of the evidence. We may revise this report in the future, depending on our research capacity and research priorities. Questions and comments are welcome. Giving Green believes that donating to our top recommendations is likely to be the most impactful giving strategy for supporting climate action. However, we recognize that donors have different preferences regarding where they give - for instance, due to tax deductibility in their home country. Taking this into consideration, we recommend Original Power specifically for audiences with specific giving criteria that direct them to Australian nonprofits. We believe Original Power to be a high-impact option, but we are unsure of the extent to which its cost-effectiveness approaches that of our top recommendations. Summary Original Power (OP) is working to ensure Australia’s First Nations communities benefit from the renewables boom. It uses a collective-action model to resource and support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to self-determine what happens on their country. This work is critical because, as Australia’s traditional owners, First Nations people have unique rights over 50 per cent of Australia’s land, making them critical stakeholders in the transition from a fossil fuel-based economy to one powered by clean, renewable energy. OP supports communities in their efforts to protect cultural heritage, challenge fossil fuel developments (if this is what communities decide), and create a just transition to renewables. OP’s work can support the rapid roll out of large-scale renewables as an alternative to fossil fuel projects, in turn reducing Australia’s emissions. This diagram illustrates OP’s theory of change: Based on OP’s achievements, strategic approach, and the impact that additional funding would have, we recommend it as one of our top organisations for accelerating climate policy and reducing Australia’s emissions. For more information on OP, please review our Deep Dive of the organisation. Donate to Original Power . Kalkarindji march in 2016 marking 50 years anniversary of Wave Hill walk-off. Credit: Jeff Tan Photography. Why we recommend Original Power The Giving Green Australia: 2021 Research Process details how we identified the highest impact organisations working to improve climate policy in Australia. The process involved expert interviews, an expert survey, focus groups, and desk research. We focused on organisations that are using the three key approaches our research determined are the highest priority for delivering policy change: ‘insider advocacy’, ‘outsider advocacy’ and ‘changing the story’. OP seeks policy change through ‘outsider advocacy’ and ‘changing the story’. Furthermore, OP was nominated 9 times by the 52 experts surveyed, which was the fourth highest number of votes any organisation received. OP would also likely deliver substantial returns from additional marginal investment. In our assessment of OP’s impact, we spoke with representatives from OP and interviewed a number of climate policy and advocacy experts and practitioners. We also reviewed publicly available information on OP, including its website and reports, as well as media coverage of the organisation. Here, we present our reasons for recommending OP. We also recommend that those interested read our Deep Dive report . 1. Original Power is helping to reduce Australia’s emissions by paving the way for renewables as a superior alternative to fossil fuels in providing jobs, economic opportunities and energy security for First Nations communities. The rapid deployment of renewable energy is critical to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit global warming to 1.5 degrees. While Australia is currently the world’s third largest exporter of fossil fuels (and number one for coal and gas), the nation could become a major global exporter of renewable energy. Australia has some of the best renewable resources in the world, many of which are on First Nations’ lands and waters. Already, the Sun Cable project is seeking to export Australian solar power to Singapore via a deep sea cable, and the development of hydrogen technologies would enable large amounts of renewable energy to be exported. However, regulation surrounding the development of Australia’s clean energy industry has inadequacies. There is little to no formal guidance on agreement-making with Australia’s First Nations people and significant barriers to ensuring equitable access to the benefits of clean energy. In the absence of government policy, OP is taking the lead. OP is a founding partner of the recently launched First Nations Clean Energy Network . The Network promotes best-practice standards in the renewable energy industry, to ensure that the transition occurs in partnership with First Nations communities, sharing its jobs and economic benefits, protecting sacred sites and respecting native title. The Network has endorsement from First Nations people, community organisations and land councils, technical and legal advisers, impact investors, clean energy industry bodies, trade unions, academia, think tanks, and major climate advocacy organisations. This breadth of support reflects a recognition that First Nations people should and can benefit from the renewables boom. As the clean energy industry expands, the Network recognises that it is important that First Nations people are empowered to make decisions which determine their future and protect their country and culture. OP is working to bring the economic benefits of renewable energy to indigenous communities. Many First Nations communities in remote parts of Australia rely on diesel generation for their energy needs, and are suffering due to high diesel prices and frequent power disconnections. Supporting these communities to develop their own renewable energy projects not only addresses energy security, but also reduces greenhouse gas emissions, improves health outcomes and creates employment opportunities. Clean, reliable energy will help First Nations communities deal with more extreme temperatures brought by climate change. OP has supported communities to develop demonstration community solar projects in Marlinja and Borroloola in the Northern Territory. It has developed a Clean Energy Economic Recovery Plan for the Northern Territory , which promotes a clean energy ‘superhighway’ through the centre of Australia via a high-speed electricity transmission line. OP worked with the Australian National University to develop a guide on Clean Energy agreement making on First Nations Land . The First Nations Clean Energy Network will advise First Nations communities and business enterprises seeking to set up or play a part in the establishment of medium- to large-scale export-focussed clean energy projects. 2. Original Power is supporting First Nations communities to exercise their rights to self-determine what happens on their country. OP provides support for First Nations communities to self-determine their own futures in the economic transition from fossil fuels to renewable power. It builds the capacity of First Nations communities who wish to protect their cultural heritage, challenge destructive fossil fuel projects, and ensure that renewable projects are developed in a way that provides just economic co-benefits to the community. As Australia’s traditional custodians, First Nations people hold special rights known as ‘native title’ over more than half of the continent. However, due to complex social and economic pressures, these rights are difficult to exert. Native title does not extinguish other land rights, such as mining rights, and usually falls short of the power to veto developments. Indigenous communities need to be able to scrutinise and manage proposed projects to ensure no damage will be done to their country or culture. OP is developing resources such as the Building Power Guide to provide First Nations communities with the knowledge, support and networks they need to protect their communities, land, water, and climate. It has been a key driver of the Passing the Message Stick Project , a two-year research initiative to find messages that are effective in building public support for First Nations self-determination and justice. OP is also connecting communities with each other and supporting the exchange of lessons, challenges and successes. 3. Original Power has a strong team with connections to First Nations communities and clean energy industry leaders and policy makers. OP’s CEO, board and staff includes highly regarded professionals from First Nations communities. They have expertise in community-building, economic development, climate change, clean energy, management consulting, and native title. The team has strong engagement with First Nations leaders and communities. Through the First Nations Clean Energy Network, OP has built a coalition with the renewables industry, investors, technical experts, campaigners and policy makers. Original Power’s Clean Energy Economic Recovery Plan for the Northern Territory is a rapid response report prepared for the Northern Territory Government’s Economic Reconstruction Commission in 2020 that demonstrates the potential for First Nations community-owned clean energy to lead the regions out of the COVID-19 economic crisis through the creation of sustainable jobs on country. The proposed plan was adopted by the NT Government as a key recommendation of the Economic Reconstruction Commission. The model is also being considered by Indigenous communities developing solar grids in Central Australia, the Barkley and Gulf regions. OP has proven it can support First Nations communities to self-determine what projects proceed on their land, and to create new industry networks that put First Nations people at the table as the renewables boom gets underway. 4. Additional marginal investment could help Original Power ensure First Nations people benefit from the renewable energy revolution, drive community-owned clean energy projects and secure equitable arrangements for large-scale renewable projects on their lands. OP is a small First Nations organisation working effectively with limited resources. Their budget for 2020-2021 was $1.2 million, the majority of which was from individual donations, trusts and foundations. Additional funding could help OP expand its on-country community engagement program, evaluate the community and climate impacts of clean energy demonstration projects, and further scale the work of the First Nations Clean Energy Network (the Network will be auspiced by OP for the first 12 months). OP’s priorities for 2022 focus on community, industry partnerships and policy reform so the First Nations Clean Energy Network can: support community-owned renewable projects to deliver lower-cost, reliable energy; create job opportunities and strong economies so First Nations people can live and work on their country; and form strong industry partnerships to share the benefits of a renewable future and avoid the mistakes of extractive industries. Risks There are three key risks associated with OP achieving its aims. First, that federal and state governments remain intransigent and fail to reform laws and regulations which currently frustrate securing a just, equitable and rapid transition to renewables. Second, that the clean energy industry does not sufficiently engage with or prioritise the interests of First Nations people as the renewables boom gets underway. Third, that First Nations communities, because of the actions of the fossil fuel industry which works to maximise profits at the expense of First Nations people, and because of a lack of alternate economic and job opportunities, have no real choice but to allow coal and gas development, or risk losing country and culture without any compensation. However, much of OP’s program is about mitigating these risks. By pursuing just economic and employment benefits for First Nations people from renewables, OP is building the social licence and political capital needed for a rapid and just transition to renewable energy within First Nations communities, the clean energy industry and policy makers. As a small organisation, OP carries personnel risks. Its ongoing effectiveness relies on retaining and attracting talent at all levels of the organisation. There can be challenges from building and managing a team of very diverse people and skills, working in communities where there may be no computers and limited internet access. To mitigate these risks, OP has recently brought on more staff and is implementing a peer-to-peer mentoring program to up-skill and support its team. OP is also offering additional support for remote staff, including helping the whole team develop systems that better acknowledge the diversity of language and literacy skills. This will be important as the organisation grows and works to expand its efforts across the country. Conclusion We believe that OP is making a significant contribution to ensuring Australia’s First Nations communities benefit from the renewables boom. Increasing First Nations communities’ access to clean, reliable energy will help them deal with more extreme temperatures brought by climate change. Securing equitable arrangements for medium- to large-scale renewable projects on First Nations land will provide an alternative to new, polluting coal and gas projects. Additional donations would enable OP to align the interests of First Nations people and the clean energy industry, making possible the mass deployment of renewables in a way that benefits First Nations communities. Based on OP’s achievements, strategic approach, and the impact that additional funding would have, we recommend it as one of our top organisations for improving climate policy in Australia. Donate to Original Power . // BACK

Project InnerSpace is one of our top climate charities in 2024. Read about its work advancing geothermal energy. Project Innerspace: Recommendation // BACK Project InnerSpace: Recommendation Last updated in October 2024. Giving Green classifies Project Innerspace as one of our top recommendations to address climate change. Conventional geothermal projects are highly limited by location, but Project Innerspace can help fast-track next-generation geothermal technologies capable of unlocking geothermal energy from more places. We think Project Innerspace’s resource mapping and funding efforts can help reduce project risks and attract more traditional investors, fostering innovation and decreasing costs. Project Innerspace has an ambitious plan for expanding access to geothermal energy, especially in the world’s top population centers in the Global South. We think its theory of change is backed by strong evidence, and we have been impressed by the thought leadership it has built. Project Innerspace reported a funding gap of $18 million for its global geothermal resource and prospecting map and would use additional funds to build this product. For more information, see our deep dive research report , a summary below, and our broader geothermal deep dive report . What is Project InnerSpace? Launched in 2022, Project InnerSpace is a US-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit focused on expanding geothermal energy globally. How could Project InnerSpace help address climate change? Project InnerSpace aims to combat climate change by expanding access to geothermal energy, which can supply carbon-free heat and electricity. We believe geothermal energy is crucial due to its ability to offer reliable, on-demand electricity while addressing the intermittent nature of wind and solar power. What does Project InnerSpace do? Project InnerSpace is developing a global geothermal resource and prospecting map, supporting geothermal projects facing funding hurdles, and building momentum for geothermal energy in both the public and private sectors. What are some of Project InnerSpace's historical accomplishments? Project Innerspace debuted its African GeoMap module in 2023 and its North America module in 2024. The latter lets users explore and rank geothermal development opportunities based on factors like transmission lines, energy demand, and cost-effectiveness, which we think could be a useful policy and advocacy tool. Members of Project InnerSpace were also lead authors on The Future of Geothermal in Texas , a technical and policy roadmap for building out next-generation geothermal technologies in Texas. What's new in 2024? As electricity demand from data centers grows in the US, Project InnerSpace is promoting geothermal energy as a clean, reliable option and accelerating partnerships to help meet this demand. It is also working with other stakeholders to build demand for geothermal heat in the US, and develop policy options that could catalyze funding for next-generation geothermal projects. It also plans to launch GeoMap modules in India and Indonesia in 2024, followed by Brazil in early 2025. Project InnerSpace, alongside its partners, also launched the Geothermal Energy from Oil and Gas Demonstrated Engineering initiative, which will adopt best practices from the oil and gas industry to address barriers to scaling next-generation geothermal technologies. What would Project InnerSpace do with your donation? Project InnerSpace reported that it would need between $3 to $5 million to manage and launch GeoMap in India and Southeast Asia, and that its progress on this project will match how quickly it fundraises. Project InnerSpace would also use additional funds to support its US policy work, such as examining incentives that could expand geothermal energy use in agriculture and data centers. Additionally, Project Innerspace anticipates a funding gap for its GeoFund, a venture whose nonprofit activities include funding catalytic projects in low- and middle-income countries. Why is Giving Green excited about Project InnerSpace? Project InnerSpace supports geothermal energy in a way that emphasizes fast iteration and quickly getting next-generation technologies on a learning curve to drive costs down. We think there is strong evidence to support its theory of change, that Project InnerSpace has positioned itself as a leader in the geothermal sector, and that it has capacity for more funding. Explore ways to give to Project InnerSpace and more. As Giving Green is part of IDInsight Inc., which is itself a charitable, tax-exempt organization, we are only offering an opinion on the charitable activities of Project InnerSpace and not on the for-profit side of its GeoFund, which includes both for-profit and nonprofit arms. This is a non-partisan analysis (study or research) and is provided for educational purposes.

You’ve probably seen it before: “Donate $1 to erase a ton of CO₂.” It sounds simple and hopeful, but at Giving Green, we do not make that claim. In this blog post, we explain why. In short, this framing appeals to logic and emotion, but it oversimplifies a complex issue. Climate change can’t be solved with transactional actions or simplified metrics. At Giving Green, we believe donors deserve honesty. Net-zero goals are important, but as outlined in our whitepaper on high-impact corporate climate programs , they are unachievable for most businesses today. The same can be said for individuals seeking to compensate for their personal footprint. These frameworks focus on carbon neutrality and often overlook the systemic changes needed for real, lasting impact. True change comes from transforming systems for long-term emissions reductions, not just negating your carbon footprint. Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: One Part of a Nuanced Climate Giving Strategy Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) are one tool of many that we use to explore whether a donation could lead to large emissions reductions relative to its cost. Rather than offering exact measurements, they help us think through what might happen if a nonprofit succeeds. Once in a while, our donors and partners will liken our CEAs to a form of carbon accounting, but it’s important to clarify that they are not the same. Carbon accounting measures actual emissions reductions from specific activities, often using standardized methods. CEAs, by contrast, estimate the potential impact of a donation based on modeled scenarios—particularly useful for evaluating systems-level work like policy advocacy or technology development, where outcomes are indirect and harder to measure. CEAs are useful for exploring potential outcomes, but they’re not crystal balls. They allow us to test assumptions, explore scenarios, and evaluate the plausibility of impact, especially in uncertain areas. However, they don’t capture everything, particularly when we’re looking at systems-level interventions, which do not always lend themselves to neat, quantifiable metrics. To gain a fuller understanding, we combine CEAs with deep qualitative research , examining a climate nonprofit’s track record, strategies, and capacity for systems change. This approach helps us focus on high-leverage opportunities with the potential for long-term, transformative impact. Why Systems Change? At Giving Green, we define systems change  as efforts that aim to change the rules of the game. This includes policy advocacy, technological innovation, and market shifts that reshape incentives and actions beyond individual projects. Systems change is often difficult to quantify precisely because it targets levers that may take years to move and depend on unpredictable breakthroughs, adoption trajectories, and political shifts.  For example, it is hard to measure the expected impact of new climate technology because there may not be enough data yet, or the technology may not exist in its final form. But investing in research and development can help determine whether the solution can lead to large-scale impact. So, many of the most powerful climate solutions—like policy wins and tech breakthroughs—do not fit neatly into cost-per-ton metrics. While hard to quantify, these solutions have the potential to drive lasting, scalable impact. How to Frame the Climate Impact of Your Donations  For all the reasons mentioned above, it is impossible to precisely measure or predict the emissions reductions per dollar donated to our Top Nonprofits and other Giving Green Fund grantees.   However, we understand that quantifiable metrics, especially when compared with alternative forms of climate action, can provide a helpful frame of reference. So, while we don’t claim to offset carbon, our research shows donations to high-impact climate charities create far greater, long-lasting change than traditional carbon offset programs.  So, with the understanding that the impact of a donation to our top climate nonprofits or grantees is impossible to quantify, below are some loose estimates based on our research: The expected value of donating $1 to a high-impact climate nonprofit is approximately 1 ton of CO₂e prevented from entering the atmosphere. (Source: Giving Green’s Research Overview ) Donations can be roughly 10 times more effective than purchasing high-quality carbon offsets. Donations are roughly 50 times more effective than contributing that money to planting trees. (Source: IPCC, 2022 ) A $50 contribution could have an impact comparable to removing a car from the road for a year. (Source: IEA, 2024 ) $1 donated could have an impact comparable to avoiding a transatlantic flight. (Source: Atmosfair )  These numbers help put the impact of your donation into perspective, but they are estimates. Remember that the true value of these donations lies in their ability to drive systemic change. Note: We use a rough rule of thumb—if something is within an order of magnitude of $1/tCO2e (i.e., less than $10/tCO2e), we consider it potentially cost-effective enough to be a Top Nonprofit. Additionally, to compare the effects of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions to CO2 emissions, we use a 75-year global warming potential (GWP). This allows us to roughly estimate the amount of energy the emissions of 1 ton of a non-CO2 greenhouse gas will absorb through 2100.  Ready to Transform Your Climate Giving? We hope this blog post can help shift your climate giving mindset from “offsetting” to “transforming”. When you donate, you aren’t just neutralizing your carbon impact—you’re funding bold, high-leverage solutions that drive the kind of lasting systemic change that cannot be measured.  If you still have questions about how to measure the impact of your climate donations or want to discuss this further, feel free to book a 1:1 session with our team . We’re happy to help clarify any uncertainties and guide you on making the most impactful choices for your climate giving. Additionally, if you’re looking to take your organization’s climate program beyond net zero to create real, systemic change, consider bringing us on as your partner. Visit our consulting page to learn about our climate consulting services and how we can help your organization drive lasting, transformative impact.

Biodiversity loss is accelerating, and with it, we’re losing the natural systems that sustain life on Earth. From carbon storage to clean water and pollination, ecosystems provide critical services that are under growing threat. This year, Giving Green was approached by a philanthropist—who prefers to remain anonymous—seeking expert guidance on how to fund highly effective strategies to address biodiversity loss. Concerned that the issue receives less attention and funding than climate change, they wanted to make a meaningful contribution but lacked the time and technical background to assess the landscape on their own. Our partnership formed the basis for this new research initiative: identifying high-impact philanthropic strategies to protect biodiversity and the ecosystem services it supports. Our work is designed to move beyond fragmented efforts, targeting systemic drivers of biodiversity loss. The philanthropic opportunity to advance biodiversity conservation  Despite the urgency of biodiversity loss, philanthropy remains a relatively small player in the space. According to Paulson Institute, foundations and NGOs contribute an estimated $1.7 to $3.5 billion USD annually —far less than government budgets (~$77 billion) or private investment in natural capital (~$27 billion). To meet global goals to protect 30% of land and sea by 2030 , the Paulson Institute, The Nature Conservancy, and the Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability estimate that a five-to-seven-fold increase in biodiversity funding is needed, amounting to an annual financing gap of $598 to $924 billion. The scale of this funding gap underscores the need for strategic, evidence-based philanthropic investments in highly effective biodiversity conservation efforts.  Since philanthropy represents a small share of biodiversity funding, it is unlikely to drive change by simply adding more funding to mainstream efforts supported by private and public sectors. Instead, philanthropic dollars should be focused on filling gaps where they can achieve an outsized impact. Global biodiversity conservation financing compared to global biodiversity conservation needs in US$ billions (Paulson Institute) In our research, we will explore how philanthropy can best leverage its resources to catalyse the systems change  needed to halt biodiversity loss.  Conventional conservation strategies typically prioritize short-term, tangible outcomes like preserving individual habitats or species. While these efforts matter, biodiversity loss is a systemic problem driven by for-profit incentives that destroy or degrade ecosystems. A systemic problem demands systemic solutions (e.g., policy change, market shaping, innovation).  Our focus areas Using a custom-built scoring dashboard built on frameworks developed by IPBES  (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services), we evaluated dozens of potential solutions using our scale, feasibility, and funding need  framework.  We have identified two strategic focus areas to explore in our research, where we think we are likely to find highly promising philanthropic strategies: Preventing land use change . Land use change is the leading global driver of biodiversity loss on land. Additionally, land use change is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, meaning that tackling this problem will fight climate change, too. We are exploring strategies that work towards a more sustainable food system and protect critical habitats. Reducing direct exploitation of wild species . Particularly in marine ecosystems, the overexploitation of species—especially via unsustainable or destructive fishing practices—is a top threat. We are exploring how advocating for better policies, enforcement, and innovations can stop overexploitation of the marine environment while benefiting fishing communities. While climate is a mid-level driver of biodiversity loss, we have opted not to focus on climate change within this specific project. Our existing climate change mitigation research  covers this extensively, and other biodiversity strategies tend to be more neglected, more targeted, and more quickly actionable through philanthropic support. What's next In the coming months, our team will dive deeper into specific interventions within these two focus areas. Our next phase will focus on identifying and evaluating high-impact organizations working in this space. We plan to publish our findings in early 2026, including a list of top nonprofits tackling biodiversity loss at scale. How you can help Are you an expert in drivers of and solutions to biodiversity loss, or do you know someone who is? We are actively looking to connect with researchers, practitioners, and funders working on addressing: The root causes of land use change Overfishing and destructive fishing If you or someone in your network has expertise in these areas, contact us here .  Interested in working with us? Have a climate giving challenge you'd like support with? We offer custom research and philanthropic strategy development through our consulting practice.  If you are an individual or an organization looking for evidence-based, high-impact philanthropic strategies to tackle climate challenges—whether on a national scale or a specific geography—we want to hear from you.   You can visit our Consulting Services page  to learn more about our climate philanthropy consulting services, and contact us here   to explore how we can work together.

Table of contents  Introduction 2024 key impact metrics 2024 highlights 2025 plans Appendix 1.Introduction In 2024, Giving Green’s research and recommendations influenced $17 million  to high-impact climate nonprofits—our strongest year yet. But the numbers only tell part of the story. As our research expertise and capacity grew, we uncovered new opportunities worldwide for high-impact climate giving. Today, the work of our Top Nonprofits spans the globe, driving impact on an international scale. Meanwhile, the Giving Green Fund’s grantmaking capacity grew significantly  in 2024, driven by a growing number of donors looking to maximize the impact of their giving, including two transformative gifts totaling $11 million. This expansion has enabled us to support a broader range of rigorously vetted, high-impact climate nonprofits, each advancing effective and diverse strategies for climate mitigation. Helping more donors make evidence-based giving decisions has been another priority. Through enhanced communications, our research is now guiding climate-conscious giving at every level —from micro-donations of just $0.30 to transformational gifts of $10 million. We are here to make high-impact climate giving easier for everyone, no matter how much they can give. This momentum would not be possible without the broader climate ecosystem. Our regional effective giving partners  tailor our research to the needs of their audiences. Impact networks and communities  connect us with like-minded allies and challenge us with fresh perspectives. And field-leading climate experts who provided feedback on our work keep us accountable to our organizational values: truth-seeking, humility, transparency, and collaboration. As 2025 begins, shifting political landscapes present new challenges for climate action, particularly in the U.S. Yet, we remain confident in the relevance and resilience of our recommended philanthropic strategies. We will continue to identify scalable, feasible, and neglected opportunities  that maximize climate impact, even in these uncertain times. The road to net zero is long and unpredictable, but we are committed to the long haul. Thank you for being on this journey with us. The contents of our 2024 annual impact report can be viewed directly in this blog post, linked here , or the downloadable PDF below. Photo 1: Giving Green’s remote team gathered in Portland, Oregon recently for a few days of in-person reflection and planning. “I deeply appreciate your transparency and look forward to seeing how your organization and recommendations change over time.” — Giving Green donor “Addressing climate change takes many solutions, so it’s hard to pick just one when I’ve been in a position to give. I’m grateful for the work you do to find, vet, and diversify projects that need support - it’s a smart strategy! Thank you for connecting the funding to the work.” —​ Giving Green Fund donor 2.2024 key impact metrics Money moved (in USD) In 2024, Giving Green influenced an estimated $17.0 million toward high-impact climate nonprofits, up from $10.9 million in 2023  and $5.5 million in 2022 . One element that drove this growth was an anonymous $10 million donation  in the spring. Since our inception in 2020, we estimate that Giving Green has influenced a total of $37.2 million in evidence-based, high-impact climate giving. See the appendix for details on how we calculated these metrics. Figure 1: Money moved by calendar year Figure 2: Recipients of money moved by Giving Green in 2024. (The box at the bottom-right represents about $265,000 raised for our grantees outside the Giving Green Fund.) Impact multiplier   In 2024, we increased our “impact multiplier”—dollars we move to our recommendations, divided by our operating cost—to 21.7. This means that every dollar donated to Giving Green’s operations in 2024 yielded about $21.70 in additional funding for other high-impact climate organizations.  The vast majority of our expenses go to staff salaries and benefits. We have an overhead rate of 11% of expenditures that covers finance, legal, and administrative functions, provided by our fiscal sponsor, IDinsight . We do not charge an administrative overhead for the Giving Green Fund.  Full-time equivalent staff GG operations cost Money moved  Impact multiplier 2020 0.5 $60,000 $195,000 3.3x 2021 1 $151,000 $2,076,000 13.7x 2022 3.8 $483,000 $5,510,000 11.4x 2023 4.4 $645,000 $10,893,000 16.9x 2024 4.8 $783,000 $17,016,000 21.7x Total $2,122,000 $35,055,000 16.8x Table 1: Calculating Giving Green’s impact multipliers from operations cost and money move d 3.2024 highlights Identified three new high-impact philanthropic strategies In 2024, we prioritized eight philanthropic strategies , including three new ones (in bold): Reducing food systems emissions Decarbonizing aviation and maritime shipping Decarbonizing heavy industry Advancing next-generation geothermal energy Supporting advanced nuclear Advancing the energy transition in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) Advancing solar radiation management (SRM) governance Scaling demand for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) Historically, Giving Green has focused exclusively on climate mitigation—reducing greenhouse gas emissions. With expanded research scope in 2024, we explored “climate interventions”—strategies that do not address the source of warming but, given the rapid rate of climate change, offer promising opportunities to supplement emissions reductions and protect human and ecological well-being. SRM governance and CDR fall into this category. 1326 1. Released new research on philanthropic opportunities in Australia While the work of our Top Nonprofits spans globally, we acknowledge that each country has its own competitive edge in climate mitigation, determined by factors such as regulatory environment, research and development (R&D) infrastructure, geography, and access to natural resources.  In 2024, with funding from Australian Ethical , we updated our research on Australia’s competitive advantage in the green transition . We found that by focusing on industrial exports, Australian philanthropists have the potential to decrease global emissions by as much as 7%, a number that would be far more costly and difficult for almost any other nation to achieve. Photo 2: Giving Green’s 2024 report on high-impact climate giving in Australia The report, followed by a list of three recommended climate nonprofits in Australia, has influenced $775,000 AUD (about $488,000 USD) in donations to date. Additionally, our team member who oversaw the research was seconded to a major Australian foundation to help design its climate philanthropy strategy.  The report was picked up by media outlets such as The Australian ,   Inside Philanthropy , and Alliance Magazine . The report’s launch webinar attracted close to 100 people.  Giving Green Fund reached new heights In Q4 of 2024, the Giving Green Fund  announced disbursements to organizations beyond our Top Nonprofits for the first time, thanks to transformative donations from the Ray and Tye Noorda Foundation and an anonymous donor , as well as a growing number of donors who embrace the idea of a fund to maximize the impact of their giving. In addition to supporting our six Top Nonprofits, the disbursements supported 20 climate nonprofits worldwide that are advancing Giving Green’s prioritized philanthropic strategies. Specifically, we developed two types of grants: Growth grants  support emerging organizations, established organizations looking to expand in specific areas, as well as specific research projects, analyses and convenings.  Ecosystem grants  seek to strengthen the ecosystem of our prioritized philanthropic strategies by supporting a wider range of organizations that advance these strategies.  Deepened our thinking on systems change  When Giving Green started, we focused on looking for evidence-based climate solutions. Over time, we concluded that to maximize our impact, we have to encourage donors to embrace giving strategies that take bolder bets to change systems.  Reflecting on this journey, we released a report in 2024 on how we think about systemic change as a climate research organization and a climate funder . It covered how we define systems change, why climate philanthropy should support systems change, and how to measure the impact of systems-changing giving opportunities when faced with high uncertainty.  The report acts as an anchor to our flagship research and recommendations, clarifying our approach to maximizing impact, and encouraging donors to explore higher-impact philanthropic strategies that truly change the rules of the game.  Press mentions We knew from day one that producing climate philanthropy research alone is not enough; we must make our research accessible to donors of all sizes. Expanding our media presence has been a key part of this communications strategy.  In 2024, Giving Green was featured in the press 31 times, including coverage in 16 major outlets with global reach, feature stories in Heatmap and TriplePundit , and an op-ed in Alliance Magazine .  A notable highlight was an Associated Press story about the Giving Green Fund  that was picked up by 600+ outlets, including The Washington Post, ABC, Fast Company, and more, significantly expanding our reach. Ramped up event appearances to increase reach With a bigger and more geographically dispersed team, we deepened our engagement with donors and partnered through three booked-out in-person events and two webinars. Kicking off 2024 in London, we hosted a workshop   with a select group of funders and advisors on how philanthropy could make “the next big thing” happen by funding systems change.  In San Francisco, we held our first SF Climate Week event  which attracted 53 attendees. The room was filled with a variety of folks from allies and partners steeped in climate action, to climate-curious donors.   Photo 3: Giving Green’s panel at SF Climate Week Later that fall, we made our New York Climate Week debut  and gathered 100+ climate actors to discuss high-impact climate philanthropy, including leaders from three of our Top Nonprofits. As one of the attendees put it, the panel discussion effectively “acknowledged both the need for really powerful technical solutions combined with the need for systemic change”. Following the webinar during the Australian giving season in April, our year-end webinar announcing our Top Nonprofits  drew over 240 live attendees.  In addition to organizing our own events, we also ramped up our appearances at partner events, such as: Speaking to climate leaders in government, investment, and science about high-impact climate action at the British Consulate-General’s event in San Francisco  during SF Climate Week. Exchanging learnings on evidence-based giving at the Effective Giving Summit in Oxford. 4.Plans for 2025  Maximize money moved to our recommendations Building on the momentum in 2024, we hope to raise even more money for our Top Nonprofits and Giving Green Fund grantees.  Level up disbursement strategies for the Giving Green Fund As the Giving Green Fund grows, we will continue to experiment with dynamic disbursement strategies that maximize its impact.  Despite headwinds in U.S. federal policy, we believe that the philanthropic strategies that we have chosen continue to be relevant on a global scale. Additionally, we will prioritize making strategic, rapid response grants throughout 2025 to meet this unique political moment in the U.S. For example, we will be identifying grant opportunities that defend federal support for energy innovation, such as in nuclear and geothermal energy, which has traditionally garnered bipartisan support.  Update research on sustainable investment Since our initial assessment of climate impact investing  in 2021, we have observed increasing demand for evidence-based guidance on sustainable investment. In 2025, we hope to create the first portfolio-level climate impact evaluation of venture capital (VC). Between 2020 to 2023, 142 billion VC dollars were invested in climate tech. A landscape evaluation of climate VC will enhance investment decision-making processes and drive capital towards the highest-impact climate solutions.  We plan to conduct the research in 2025 and release the findings publicly in 2026. However, this work is funding-dependent. If you are interested in supporting this work, please reach out .  Take on at least two new consulting projects  While our flagship climate nonprofit recommendations help many donors maximize their climate impact, we know that one size does not fit all. That is why we take on special consulting projects  to address unique donor constraints and opportunities, broaden our impact, and diversify our revenue streams. In 2025, we are excited to launch at least two new initiatives in partnership with aligned funders: Identifying evidence-based ways philanthropy can protect biodiversity. Mapping out high-impact climate giving opportunities in Puerto Rico.   While these projects are funded by individual philanthropists, the results will be released publicly as part of our mission to make high-impact climate giving easier for everyone.  If you would like to explore consulting projects with us, please reach out .   We find high-impact climate initiatives.  You can turbocharge them.   Giving Green Incubated by IDinsight 5.Appendix Who we are Giving Green guides individuals, foundations, and businesses to make more effective climate giving decisions. We find evidence-based, cost-effective, and high-leverage organizations that maximize the climate impact of your money.  Our organization Our organization consists of three main functions: Research : conduct climate giving research and produce recommendations. Communications : disseminate findings to diverse audiences. Fundraising and grantmaking : we support a wide range of nonprofits through the Giving Green Fund , a climate grantmaking fund.  Our products and functions are guided by our organizational values : truth-seeking, humility, transparency, and collaboration. Theory of change Figure 3: Giving Green’s theory of change 2024 top climate nonprofit recommendations Figure 4: Giving Green’s 2024 Top Climate Nonprofits How we calculate impact metrics  1. Data sources To calculate money moved, we first ask each recommended organization for its best estimate of money directed from sources we have influenced. Example sources include: Donors who clicked on a recommended organization’s site from Giving Green’s site Donors who proactively mentioned hearing about a recommended organization from a media piece informed by Giving Green Foundations that made a gift after considering several sources of evidence, including Giving Green’s research It is worth noting that different organizations have different tracking methods and capabilities. We cross-reference data from recommended organizations with other sources, such as our internal tracking, conversations with large donors or business purchasers, and regranters facilitating donations to our recommendations.  2. Impact attribution Once we have this data, we multiply each dollar amount by a percentage that represents our estimate of the share of influence we had over that amount. This subjective assessment encompasses questions like: Were these donors influenced by multiple sources, and if so, does Giving Green only deserve “partial credit”? How certain are we that these donors were influenced by Giving Green versus another source?  For example, if a recommended organization raised $50,000 from a donor who used Giving Green as one of many resources in their decision making, we might assign ourselves 20%, or $10,000, of impact. However, if a donor says they used Giving Green as their primary information source, we might assign ourselves 100% of the impact. We assign three such percentages:  A “certain” percentage: what share of this money are we completely certain is attributable to Giving Green? A “best guess” percentage: taking into account the above factors An “optimistic” percentage: taking an optimistic view of the above factors  By adding all “best guess” amounts together, we reach a total “best guess” for money moved. Similarly, adding the “certain” amounts together and “optimistic” amounts together gives us an estimated range of money moved. Our certainty Estimate of money moved in 2024 Certain $15.2M Best guess $17.0M Optimistic $30.6M Table 2: Range of estimates of our money moved. In 2024, our “best guess” number is $17.0M. This is relatively close to our “Certain” number because a large share of this money went through the Giving Green Fund. Our “Optimistic” number is much higher primarily (but not entirely) because of a large donation directly given to one of our recommendations. We suspect this gift is due to the influence of Giving Green, but we do not have solid evidence; our “best guess” estimate includes an attribution of 10% on this gift to reflect that uncertainty, while our “optimistic” guess includes an attribution of 100%. 3. Uncertainties We are uncertain whether the “money moved” metric adequately accounts for the counterfactual impact of the money. If, for instance, a donor would have otherwise given to a nonprofit that is 50% as effective, should we credit ourselves with 50% of this money moved? Our current assumption, based on limited customer research, is that most donors would have given to significantly less effective nonprofits or not at all, but we recognize that this is a major uncertainty. We are also uncertain whether our data is capturing all of our donor audience, and therefore, our impact numbers may be a significant underestimate. For instance, it is relatively easy for us to assess our impact on mass-market online donors whose online gifts can be tracked. However, it is difficult to assess our influence with larger donors or business purchasers, who may give via check or wire transfer and not proactively mention Giving Green as an inspiration. For example, in several cases, we have heard that we influenced large gifts many months after the fact.