Search Results

Australian Policy Change: Shallow Dives // BACK This report was last updated in December 2021. Download the full report: 2021-12 Australian Policy Change Shallow Dives .pdf Download PDF There are well over a hundred organisations working to accelerate climate action in Australia. The Climate Action Network Australia alone has 125 member organisations. They range from large international non-government organisations through to small-scale local charities and community groups. The Giving Green Australia: 2021 Research Process sets out the steps we took to determine which of the organisations working to accelerate climate action in Australia stand to make the greatest impact with a marginal dollar donation. Based on that initial assessment, we narrowed the list down to 12 organisations that were asked to complete a short survey about themselves focussed on the assessment criteria. Several organisations also participated in hour-long semi-structured interviews on their work. This report includes the ‘shallow dives’ of these 12 organisations. // BACK

Original Power: Recommendation // BACK This report was last updated in December 2021. 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

Clean Air Task Force: Deep Dive // BACK This report was last updated in November 2023. Download the report here, or read the full text below. Clean Air Task Force deep dive for publication, 2023-11-08 .pdf Download PDF • 1.17MB Table of Contents Summary What is CATF? Program Snapshots Superhot rock energy (SHR) Zero-carbon fuels (ZCF) Transportation Decarbonization Is There Room for More Funding? Are There Major Co-Benefits or Adverse Effects? Key Uncertainties and Open Questions Bottom Line / Next Steps Endnotes Summary Clean Air Task Force (CATF) is one of the top climate nonprofits selected by Giving Green in 2023. We previously recommended CATF in 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 2023, 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 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 related 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 over 100 countries at COP26. Under this pledge, countries collectively agreed to reduce methane emissions by 30% by 2030. 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 adverse effects? 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 funding need, 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. What is CATF? Clean Air Task Force (CATF) is a nonprofit that advances technologies and policies for economy-wide decarbonization. Its work can be generalized into three categories: modeling and systems analysis, technology innovation, and policy advocacy. Since its founding in 1996, it has built close relationships with policymakers and brought in staff with extensive legal, technical, and policy experience. Our impression is that CATF’s strategy promotes the innovation of targeted climate technologies that are either emerging or not broadly supported by civil society. For example, CATF has program areas in nuclear, geothermal, and hard-to-electrify transport, which we consider relatively neglected by philanthropy. CATF’s work focuses on nascent technologies, such as advanced nuclear, superhot rock energy, and zero-carbon fuels, within each of these sectors. See the figure below for a full list of CATF’s program areas. While its policy work has historically been focused on the US, CATF has been increasing its international engagement. For example, it was instrumental in catalyzing the Global Methane Pledge, which was introduced by US President Joe Biden and EU President Ursula von der Leyen in September 2021 and signed by over 100 countries at COP26. Under this pledge, countries collectively agreed to reduce methane emissions by 30% by 2030. CATF has also begun to scale its work on technology innovation to include global implementation and commercialization. For example, it is interested in expanding energy access in Sub-Saharan Africa and connecting people to low-emission energy sources like superhot rock (SHR) geothermal energy. In the Middle East and North Africa, CATF has focused on catalyzing and accelerating networks for low-carbon hydrogen, including that produced from natural gas and supported with carbon capture and storage (CCS) and upstream methane controls. Giving Green recommended CATF in 2022 , 2021 , and 2020 , concentrating our assessment on its US federal policy work. Following the passage of the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), we shifted our focus from general US domestic policy to concentrating on sector-specific philanthropic strategies with a global focus. To match this shift, we evaluated the work of CATF that overlapped with some of our prioritized strategies for 2023. Specifically, we analyzed CATF’s work on superhot rock energy , zero-carbon fuels , and transportation decarbonization . The next section presents a more detailed, program-specific analysis of these three areas. Program Snapshots For the three program areas mentioned above, we give an overview of each program, describe its main strategies, illustrate our interpretation of its theory of change, and evaluate the assumptions behind the theory of change. For each assumption, 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. Importantly, a number of the stages of the 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. Superhot rock energy (SHR) Strategies CATF focuses on SHR, a proposed energy source that could potentially supply cost-competitive and on-demand renewable energy for heating and electricity generation. SHR is considered further from technological readiness compared to other enhanced geothermal systems and has been described as a moonshot technology. (For more information on geothermal energy, please see our geothermal energy deep dive report .) CATF’s SHR team’s strategies include conducting technical analyses, building momentum for SHR globally through stakeholder engagement, and advocating for supportive policies in the US. Technical analysis The SHR team analyzes and communicates research and technological gaps in SHR development. An example of its work includes its Superhot Rock Energy report that lays out the energy’s source’s potential, current status and needed innovations, and roadmap forward. It has also developed a Superhot Rock Project Map , an interactive map that indicates how deep projects will need to dig to reach 450°C, the temperature needed for SHR, and the locations of existing and planned SHR projects and wells. This tool is intended to help drive awareness of SHR. Stakeholder engagement CATF creates networks for sharing resources and knowledge to speed up innovation and reduce risks related to SHR projects. It said it acts as a catalyst and coordinator between technology companies, industry partners, government officials, and potential investors. It has identified opportunities for research and demonstration globally, including efforts in Africa, Asia, the Americas, Europe, and Oceania. It has also introduced SHR at COP27 to drive public awareness and convince delegates that superhot rock energy is worth supporting. Policy advocacy In the US, CATF’s SHR team has urged Congress to include SHR pilot demonstrations in budget appropriations. We think its advocacy has been successful given that the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021 included $74 million to support enhanced geothermal systems pilot demonstration projects, including SHR. According to CATF, $20 million of those funds are allocated for SHR pilot demonstrations. From our conversations with policymakers, we learned that CATF was instrumental in shaping the US geothermal roadmap that includes SHR. CATF also works on the regulatory side, identifying and documenting best practices related to seismicity and groundwater protection. We think its work on identifying regulatory best practices could act as a blueprint for geothermal projects outside the US. Theory of change Figure 2: Theory of change diagram for CATF’s SHR program Examining key assumptions We note two key assumptions in CATF’s theory of change: 1. CATF’s work increases the likelihood that supportive policies for SHR are passed and speeds up Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment (RDD&D) relative to the counterfactual ( high certainty ) We have high certainty that CATF's efforts increase the chances of passing supportive policies for SHR and accelerating SHR RDD&D. We believe that without CATF, there would be a lack of advocacy for SHR policies. This impression is based on the fact that, among the limited number of nonprofits supporting geothermal energy, CATF has been the most outspoken advocate for SHR. Given that SHR is a specialized technology, we also believe that the few companies working on it lack a significant platform for advocacy. Our discussions with geothermal experts and funders have shown that CATF has played a crucial role in raising awareness of SHR in the public eye. Furthermore, we have learned from others that CATF's technical reports have been valuable in roadmapping a potential future for SHR in the US. 2. Supporting SHR RDD&D will increase the likelihood of its commercial viability ( medium certainty ) We think it’s likely that supporting SHR RDD&D will improve the technologies needed to access SHR and increase the likelihood that it becomes commercially viable. However, we do not think SHR is a sure bet because, compared to other next-generation geothermal technologies, SHR is not as far along in its development timeline. We think it is possible that by having a headstart, other next-generation technologies may outcompete SHR in terms of cost if they can get onto a learning curve and become much cheaper and faster. However, there is always considerable uncertainty over what kind of learning curve a new technology will follow. We discuss the trade-offs between SHR and other next-generation options in our section on key uncertainties and open questions . Zero-carbon fuels (ZCF) CATF’s ZCF program aims to advance low-carbon hydrogen to reduce emissions across sectors where limited or no other energy-efficient or cost-effective alternatives for decarbonization exist, including maritime shipping, long-haul trucking, ironmaking, industrial heating, aviation, and energy storage. The team’s primary focus is reducing emissions from existing hydrogen production and deployment in end-use sectors, including steel, ammonia for fertilizers, methanol, and oil refining. The team’s secondary focus is promoting low-carbon hydrogen for scaled next-generation applications, such as producing synthetic jet fuel for aviation and ammonia for shipping. Its efforts have mainly focused on the US, EU, and Middle East, but it plans to continue expanding globally to meet demand and production opportunities for ZCF. Strategies Technical analysis The team undertakes technical analysis, producing reports and tools to help grow public awareness, influence policy and regulation design, promote innovation, shape the market, and support the work of other CATF programs, including Transportation Decarbonization . We list examples of reports and tools produced by the ZCF team: The team has put together public, peer-reviewed, techno-economic models of low-carbon hydrogen production and long-distance transport to elevate factors that could reduce present-day challenges such as cost, storage, and transportation. The Hydrogen Production Calculator is intended to help quantify the resources needed to produce a selected amount of hydrogen (by type) or ammonia. The team has developed a model for the full lifecycle emissions of hydrogen production based on jurisdiction and production pathway, published in October 2023. Not only will this help to inform the structure of standards and incentives, but it can also be used to address air quality and climate impacts such as supply chain methane emissions and hydrogen leakage. The team is also developing a cost model for hydrogen and ammonia production to help stakeholders estimate costs and understand the parameters influencing costs, to be published in late 2023. Stakeholder engagement The team aims to elevate awareness of the role of ZCFs in hard-to-electrify sectors through public events , communications materials, policy briefings, and alignment and convenings of key stakeholders . It also facilitates global dialogue between emerging ZCF producers and buyers to align potential supply and demand, strengthen the market ecosystem, and pave the way for offtake agreements. The team maintains a network of partners in industry, civil society, and academia. It uses these partnerships to find the needed innovation initiatives for ZCF production and adoption and to promote practical ways to expand ZCF technology in global markets. Policy advocacy The ZCF team identifies policy and regulation as key levers supporting innovation, infrastructure, and market shaping. It encourages policies that support ZCF production in hard-to-decarbonize sectors, align emissions accounting and certification for international hydrogen trade, and fund demonstration projects to help launch technologies, infrastructure, and partnerships. Examples include the team’s engagement on US hydrogen hubs –regional networks of low-carbon hydrogen producers, consumers, and enabling infrastructure, and the EU’s Fit for 55 –a policy package that aims to reduce the EU’s emissions by 55% by 2030. Theory of change Figure 3: Theory of change diagram for CATF’s ZCF program Examining key assumptions Below, we discuss and evaluate three key assumptions related to the ZCF program’s theory of change. 1. CATF’s ZCF analysis helps inform standards setting, certification schemes, policy advocacy efforts, and stakeholder engagement ( high certainty ) We believe CATF's strong suit is its in-depth technical analysis, which we confirmed by evaluating its publications and talking to external experts. In the context of ZCFs, we find that the tools and reports it releases to address critical technical gaps in the sectors for which (i) research is still ongoing, (ii) information is hard to access for groups like communities, civil society, or policymakers; or (iii) resources are needed for creating or implementing specific standards and policies. One example is its work to model hydrogen production’s resource demands, including energy and water feedstocks. Another example is its work to model hydrogen life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, including hydrogen leakage. We think this could help avoid future uncertainties around incentive structures such as those that arose for the 45V tax credit. 2. CATF’s efforts to build public awareness and convene stakeholders facilitate alignment for standards-setting and certification schemes, broaden support and investment for innovation and infrastructure, and encourage market growth ( medium certainty ) Because of CATF’s established reputation, international presence, and strong cross-sectoral network, we have high confidence in its role as a convener of diverse stakeholders. Given the broad applicability of ZCFs, we think it is likely that CATF’s team can leverage well-established partnerships forged through past work in other program areas. However, given its advocacy for a broad low-carbon hydrogen portfolio as well as the organization's historical support of incentives for power sector carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) and enhanced oil recovery (EOR) for storage of emissions or atmospheric removals, we have less certainty about its effectiveness at facilitating alignment across stakeholders who perceive these technologies as levers to prolong fossil fuel use. We address some of these concerns in more detail in our section on key uncertainties and open questions . 3. CATF’s policy advocacy efforts increase the likelihood of widespread adoption of robust ZCF policies ( high certainty ) Similar to our assessment of its convening power, we have high certainty in CATF’s ability to influence policy, given its track record of success in the US and its growing international presence. For example, CATF helped secure key climate provisions in the bipartisan Energy Act of 2020 and provided technical assistance and input on important authorization and funding measures in the IIJA. It also successfully advocated for IRA provisions for cutting methane pollution, advancing neglected low-emissions technologies, and making tax incentives and grants stackable. In addition, it continues to be engaged throughout the implementation phase of these policies. For example, after the October 2023 announcement regarding the allocation of $7 billion to seven regional hydrogen hubs, CATF released guidance on priority end-use sectors and the role of community engagement . We believe the US policies it contributed to and its advocacy strategies can be used as blueprints for different contexts and geographies as it expands its ZCF work. 4. Policies and stakeholder coordination enable low-carbon hydrogen to scale to meet the needs across sectors ( medium certainty ) Given cross-sector demand and the uptick in supply-side hydrogen policy initiatives, we have medium certainty that low-carbon hydrogen can scale to meet the needs as a direct energy source or as a feedstock for other alternative fuels. For more information, see our deep dive report on decarbonizing aviation and maritime shipping. Transportation Decarbonization CATF's Transportation Decarbonization program aims to reduce emissions from the transportation sector to zero by mid-century. Its Transportation Decarbonization team concentrates on hard-to-electrify transportation modes like aviation, maritime shipping, long-haul trucking, and road transport in emerging economies with inadequate electric grids for vehicle electrification. In parallel with its efforts promoting zero-emission vehicles, the Transportation Decarbonization team supports work to develop and scale low- and zero-carbon fuels and the requisite infrastructure. Thus far, the Transportation Decarbonization team has focused on the US and EU because it claims these geographies (i) hold the most feasible political opportunities and investments to launch ZCF markets and (ii) are centers of influence for relevant international bodies such as the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) . In 2022, the team began expanding its work to emerging economies (India and Kenya) and plans for further growth. Strategies Technical and market analysis The team conducts technical and market analyses to identify innovation needs and market barriers for each transport pathway. For example, the team assessed alternative fuel options for maritime shipping and identified hydrogen and ammonia as the most viable. It has also released a report on the benefits and limitations of emerging fuels in aviation, including biofuels, hydrogen, and synthetic fuels. We think that this technical and market analysis is foundational to internally informing the team’s focus areas and policy recommendations and supporting these positions publicly. Stakeholder engagement The transportation team engages companies (vehicle manufacturers, fleet owners and operators, fuel suppliers) with technology experts to validate and align around its analysis and findings, including major innovation and market gaps. It also fosters cross-sector collaboration to support the demonstration and adoption of new technologies, such as low/zero-emission vehicles, and promote ZCF market growth. Policy advocacy The team advocates for policies that support innovation through levers such as incentives, mandates, and performance standards. Our understanding is that this work happens in coordination with other CATF teams, including ZCF and Middle East and North Africa (MENA). In the US, the team advocates for state and federal emissions standards, clean fuel standards, and effective sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit structure. It also supports ZCF fueling infrastructure in US ports proximal to hydrogen hubs and pushes the US government to call for stronger IMO targets. CATF is leading the development of a federal carbon-intensity-based fuel standard that would decarbonize all transportation fuels, including electricity, by midcentury. In the EU, the team advocates for zero-emission truck mandates and infrastructure. It tracks and supports ZCF marine vessel development and green shipping corridors and promotes stronger FuelEU Maritime implementation. It also advocates for regulations to guardrail biofuels and policies to scale non-biofuel SAF alternatives. The team coordinates power sector and transportation decarbonization in emerging economies, with a current focus on India and Sub-Saharan Africa. It works to prompt ZCF fueling infrastructure in ports and shipping corridors, for example, between Singapore and Shanghai and between the US and the UK. It also works to ensure that the federal hydrogen hubs program leverages opportunities for shipping and trucking decarbonization and establishing clean transport corridors between hubs. Theory of change Figure 4: Theory of change diagram for CATF’s Transportation Decarbonization Program Examining key assumptions behind the theory of change Below, we discuss and evaluate key assumptions related to the Transportation Decarbonization Program’s theory of change. 1. CATF’s technical analysis supports stakeholder engagement and policy advocacy and influences innovation, infrastructure, and market progress ( high certainty ) Technical and market analysis has led the team to hone in on hard-to-electrify transport sectors and identify key technological and market gaps. For example, the modes of transport on which the team focuses, such as aviation and maritime shipping, have been neglected with respect to general road transport. Within aviation and maritime shipping, the team has identified ZCFs as a critical yet nascent technology for decarbonization. We think conducting deep technical analysis enables the team to channel its stakeholder engagement and policy advocacy toward the greatest marginal impact, targeting the organization's efforts to address neglected yet critical innovation needs. For example, CATF’s analysis of the limited overall potential of biofuels led to the development of a policy to transition biofuel use from the road sector, which can largely electrify, to the aviation sector, which cannot. 2. CATF’s policy advocacy leads to increased adoption of policies supporting transportation decarbonization ( high certainty ) As described in the strategy description, the team has targeted policy approaches for each geography in which it works, including the US, EU, India, and Sub-Saharan Africa. We think that this global scope, paired with local considerations, demonstrates experience and familiarity with policy advocacy in different contexts and the ability to leverage the comparative advantages of certain political contexts or geographies. This, combined with CATF’s track record of success with US policy, gives us high certainty that its advocacy work will increase the support and adoption of policies for decarbonizing transport globally. 3. Policies for ZCFs and other fuels enable alternative fuels for shipping and aviation to become cost-competitive and scale to meet the needs of the sectors ( medium certainty ) The cost trajectories of alternative fuels are highly correlated to the cost of low-carbon hydrogen. Given cross-sector demand and the uptick in supply-side hydrogen policy initiatives, we have medium certainty that low-carbon hydrogen can become cost-competitive in the near term and be scaled to meet the needs as a fuel or feedstock for low-carbon shipping and aviation fuels. On the other hand, the production cost of synthetic jet fuels, or e-sustainable aviation fuels (e-SAFs), will depend on the cost of sourcing low-carbon hydrogen and climate-neutral CO 2 . The most climate-beneficial sources of CO 2 may either be through carbon removal technologies like DAC, which are currently quite expensive, or sustainable biomass, for which feedstocks are limited. E-SAFs are among the most costly fuels, given the price of feedstocks and the complex chemical reactions involved in the production process. We think that it will require broad and ambitious incentives for e-SAFs to become cost-competitive with conventional jet-fuel or biomass-based sustainable aviation fuels, and we have lower certainty in their ability to scale to meet the sector's needs. We address the feasibility of decarbonizing aviation as a key uncertainty. Is There Room for More Funding? CATF’s target 2024 expense budget is currently angled at $40 million USD. This represents a decrease from 2023 ($55.4 million) and, according to CATF, reflects a more conservative approach in a volatile economic environment. CATF has previously said its goal is to build a sustainable multi-year funding program and potentially grow its operating budget to $100 million over the next four to five years. We think that this goal is important given that many of its programs are built upon multi-year strategies that require sustained funding. It is our understanding that CATF would use additional funding for: Maintaining and growing existing programs: CATF programs have developed multi-year strategies requiring sustained or increased funding. For example, The Superhot Rock Energy program needs $12.5 million over three years to implement its strategies. This includes hiring a policy manager with expertise in securing public funding in Europe and the US, conducting technical and market analysis for SHR, and continuing its advocacy efforts. The ZCF team needs $10 million over three years to execute its strategies, including capacity building, performing further technical and market analysis, educating stakeholders, and supporting first-mover projects and infrastructure development. The Transportation Decarbonization team needs $6.5 million over three years to execute its strategies, including commissioning or conducting technical and legal analysis, partner engagement, and policy advocacy. Expanding geographically: CATF plans to expand its geographical scope and policy focus to meet the global decarbonization challenge. We think it is well positioned to capitalize on the current political climate, influence policy debate within the US and EU, and promote pragmatic climate pathways in Africa and the Middle East. CATF said it has used past Giving Green funds to support and grow existing programs and launch new initiatives. For example, CATF has cited Giving Green funds as critical to supporting its international expansion to Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Based on the above, we think CATF could effectively absorb more money across its programs, especially for work in new geographies. However, we also think there could be organizational growing pains given CATF’s recent rapid growth, which we mention in our section on key uncertainties and open questions . Are There Major Co-Benefits or Adverse Effects? 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 CATF’s room for more funding: CATF has more than doubled its budget in recent years, going from a total revenue of almost $20 million in 2020 to a 2023 revenue projection of $45 million. Given CATF’s fundraising success, we think there is a good chance that CATF could successfully achieve its future fundraising goals without money directed by Giving Green. However, we think CATF could continue to absorb more funding as it expands to new geographies and implements its policy priorities. We are uncertain about this because (i) CATF’s international work is relatively new, and (ii) there may be growing pains within the organization if it expands too quickly. Advocacy for incentives for power sector CCUS and captured CO 2 storage via EOR: CATF’s advocacy for enhancements to the US Section 45Q tax credit included continued eligibility for power sector applications of carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS). There is concern that the tax incentives may extend the life of US coal and natural gas-fired power plants. One analysis suggests that 45Q could increase the operating years of an otherwise end-of-life coal plant into the 2040s, resulting in at least 6 million metric tons of additional CO 2 e emissions. CATF claims that it foresees little deployment of CCS in the US power sector but that the plants that use it will help bring down its cost through learning by doing, resulting in accelerated uptake in emerging economies. While Giving Green thinks CCS could be a valuable technology in contexts such as heavy industry or power plants in emerging economies, we share concerns about incentivizing its use for US fossil fuel power plants. In addition, CATF has continued to advocate for the inclusion of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) for storage of captured emissions or atmospheric removals in subsidies such as 45Q. CATF argues that EOR is climate beneficial, that it serves as the primary niche market for scaling capture technologies, and that it can help transition to large-scale saline storage. Others question the need to subsidize it, especially given concerns over environmental justice, the potential to prolong oil extraction, and the involvement of the fossil fuel industry in the trajectory of emerging climate technologies like DAC. Support for a broad low-carbon hydrogen portfolio: CATF supports low-carbon hydrogen, including hydrogen produced from steam methane reforming (SMR) paired with methane emissions control and CCUS. Given that this process uses natural gas, we are concerned about continued dependence on fossil fuels, the fossil fuel industry’s role in blue hydrogen production, and the climate impacts of blue hydrogen due to methane leaks. We are also unsure whether investing in general low-carbon hydrogen and the requisite infrastructure could lock in fossil-fuel-derived hydrogen and decelerate the transition to hydrogen produced via clean energy and electrolyzers, a production process we think is more sustainable in the long term. Questioning methanol as a key fuel for shipping vessels: CATF has elevated hydrogen and ammonia as scalable fuels for decarbonizing the shipping sector and de-emphasized the role of methanol. However, our impression is that the technology to retrofit engines to run on methanol is relatively advanced and that private sector orders for methanol-powered vessels are outpacing those for ammonia-powered vessels. Our understanding is that CATF finds ammonia to be more likely to scale and favorable as it does not involve CO 2 as either a feedstock or byproduct of combustion. To reduce the climate impacts of methanol, the CO 2 used as a feedstock must be captured directly from the atmosphere through expensive and emerging technologies like direct air capture (DAC) or derived from sustainable biomass, for which feedstocks are limited. If methanol continues to dominate ammonia as an alternative shipping fuel, we are uncertain how effective CATF’s advocacy will be. However, we also acknowledge that general carbon-intensity performance standards, such as those for which CATF advocates, may help shift the market to lower-carbon fuels, including low-carbon methanol. Betting on a specific next-generation geothermal technology : We are uncertain about the expected value of different next-generation geothermal technologies. Giving Green is hedging its bets by supporting CATF and Project InnerSpace , which take different approaches to advancing geothermal energy. Our understanding is that Project InnerSpace focuses on new technologies that are further along in their development than super-hot rock geothermal, which is CATF’s primary focus. We think super-hot rock geothermal energy is less of a sure bet, but it could offer cheaper and abundant carbon-free energy if it becomes commercially viable. Due to this uncertainty, we think it is important for us to be technology-agnostic and diversify the next-generation geothermal technologies we support. Feasibility of decarbonizing aviation: Aviation is one of the most difficult sectors to decarbonize as there is no clear, viable technological pathway. Given the high cost of producing e-SAFs, we think that a possible scenario is that the aviation sector cannot fully decarbonize and could, for some time, rely on carbon removal to compensate for these unabated emissions. CATF’s cost-effectiveness: We chose not to quantify CATF’s cost-effectiveness given the high uncertainty across key parameters and the shortcomings of these models to address the complexity of the space. Instead, our general research into what is needed to promote emerging geothermal technologies and to decarbonize aviation and maritime shipping forms the basis of our evaluation, and we think that our analysis of the technical, policy, investment, and philanthropy landscapes enables us to identify organizational strategies that are highly effective. By not modeling CATF’s organizational cost-effectiveness, we may lose the ability to compare its cost-effectiveness with that of other giving opportunities. However, it’s important to note that our cost-effectiveness analyses are generally regarded as rough plausibility checks. Bottom Line / Next Steps We classify Clean Air Task Force (CATF) as a top recommended nonprofit 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 transportation decarbonization to be highly effective and complementary to the work of our other recommendations in these sectors, Project InnerSpace and Opportunity Green , respectively. We plan to continue assessing our key uncertainties and believe that we will be able to substantially improve our understanding of the severity and importance of some or all of these uncertainties in the near future. Endnotes 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. Unless otherwise cited, information in this deep dive comes from direct correspondence with Clean Air Task Force. [1] “As problem solvers and creative environmentalists, we achieve change in three main ways…” CATF [2] Founding date: “When CATF was launched in 1996, our strategy was simple: enact federal policy to force older coal plants to meet the same emission rates as new plants.” “Our History and Impact” n.d. Staff: For more information on CATF’s staff, please see its “ Meet Our Experts ” page. [3] “President Biden and President Von der Leyen announced at the September 17 Major Economies Forum (MEF) meeting that the United States and the European Union are inviting countries to support the Global Methane Pledge to be launched at COP 26 in November 2021 in Glasgow… Participants joining the Pledge agree to take voluntary actions to contribute to a collective effort to reduce global methane emissions at least 30 percent from 2020 levels by 2030, which could eliminate over 0.2˚C warming by 2050… With over 100 countries on board, representing nearly 50% of global anthropogenic methane emissions and over two thirds of global GDP, we are well on our way to achieving the Pledge goal and preventing more than 8 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions from reaching the atmosphere annually by 2030.” "About the Global Methane Pledge" n.d. [4] 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 = 0-60%, medium = 70-80%, high = 80-100%. [5] “Superhot rock energy is poised for a breakthrough as a high-energy-density, zero-carbon, always available energy source that could be commercialized worldwide in the 2030s. Analyses for Clean Air Task Force (CATF) by Lucid Catalyst and Hotrock Energy Research Organization (HERO) suggest that, with more ambitious geothermal energy funding and public-private partnerships to spur innovation, it could be cost-competitive with most zero-carbon technologies—transforming global energy systems by providing clean, firm, cost-competitive renewable energy while requiring significantly less land than other sources.” Clean Air Task Force, "Superhot Rock Energy Report" 2022 . [6] The Superhot Moonshot: Pivot from Hydrocarbons to Heat, “Day 1 - The Superhot Moonshot: Half Day Symposium | Session One: Where Are We Now?” 2022. [7] Giving Green conversation with Clean Air Task Force, 2023-05-18. [8] “In order to drive awareness of superhot rock energy’s unparalleled potential, CATF created a Superhot Rock Project Map which highlights superhot rock projects in various states of maturity. The map shows the estimated depth to reach 450°C across the world, as well as existing and planned superhot rock projects and wells.” Clean Air Task Force, "Superhot Rock" n.d. [9] “Act as a catalyst and coordinator, bringing together technology companies, industry partners (including multinational energy companies), government officials, and potential investors to create a network that galvanizes the SHR ecosystem and facilitates a roadmap for SHR research and development and demonstration (RD&D) projects”. Clean Air Task Force, Superhot Rock Energy Overview” n.d. [10] “CATF has identified opportunities for SHR research and demonstration across the world. These include recent EU-funded efforts in Iceland, Italy, Mexico, and New Zealand; venture capital investments such as GA Drilling, an energy drilling start-up in Slovakia; geothermal energy resources in Ethiopia and Kenya; the world’s first SHR demonstrations, run by U.S.-based startups AltaRock Energy, Eavor, Geothermic Solutions, and GeoX Energy; critical technology development by U.S. national laboratories and companies like Houston’s Quaise; key RD&D taking place in Japan to develop low-risk SHR resources; and work in China (where we currently advise a private company that has since built an SHR laboratory) and India (where we are in dialogue with an Indian NGO).” Clean Air Task Force, Superhot Rock Energy Overview” n.d. [11] “‘We are here to raise awareness – this energy source is nearly unrecognised in the decarbonisation debate, despite the fact that it is truly unparalleled,” she added. “It is taking the niche industry of geothermal to the next level by amping it up with additional temperature and additional pressure.’ Rogers is hoping to convince delegates to make a bet on deep geothermal energy as a key technology for the future.” Energy Monitor, "COP27: Deep geothermal “superhot rock energy” could be key to climate action" 2022 . [12] Bipartisan Infrastructure Law: “On February 8, 2023, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced up to $74 million to support enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) pilot demonstration projects called for in President Biden’s landmark Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The legislation authorizes DOE to support up to seven competitively selected pilot projects that collectively demonstrate EGS in different geologic settings, using a variety of development techniques and well orientations.” US Department of Energy, "Funding Notice: Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) Pilot Demonstrations" n.d. Inclusion of SHR: SHR was listed as one of the topic areas in DOE’s funding opportunity announcement. US Department of Energy, "Funding Notice: Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) Pilot Demonstrations" n.d. [13] Giving Green correspondence with Clean Air Task Force, 2023-05-16. [14] “Identify and document best practices relating to seismicity and groundwater protection to facilitate establishment of smart, supportive, and protective regulatory oversight.” Clean Air Task Force, Superhot Rock Energy Overview” n.d. [15] Our understanding is that Project InnerSpace is more focused on deploying next-generation geothermal technologies that are further along in RDD&D and less focused on SHR. Other geothermal organizations represent the interests of both conventional geothermal technologies and next-generation technologies and are less focused on SHR compared to CATF. [16] While it restricts our transparency with readers, we frequently engage in confidential conversations where we promise to protect the identity of our sources. As a result, we cannot disclose the names of these specific sources. [17] Unless otherwise cited, information in this section comes from direct correspondence with CATF as well as the following resources: CATF ZCF Overview (February 2023) , CATF ZCF (July 2023) [18] “The future leakage rate of hydrogen into the atmosphere is a major uncertainty and our assessment of the climate impact of an hydrogen economy transition is performed assuming different leakage rates.” Hauglustaine, D. et al (2022) [19] “The worries, shared by the Clean Air Task Force, the Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists, are grounded in a study from a team of scientists at Princeton University. It concludes the looser accounting guidelines influential industry players are seeking would enable them to make the energy-intensive fuel without adding enough new clean power to local electricity grids to produce it.” Washington Post (2023) [20] “At COP27, panelists explored how the Middle East and North African regions can seize the opportunity before them and transform themselves from suppliers of unabated fossil fuels into a climate-forward, global suppliers of abundant clean energy.” CATF (2022) [21] Energy Act of 2020: Helped Secure $125 billion in Federal Funding for Climate Technology; IIJA: Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act: A Down Payment on Fulfilling Federal Promises for Climate Action; IRA: The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022: What it is, what it means, and how it came to pass (2022) [22] Hydrogen policy database IEA [23] Unless otherwise cited, information in this section comes from direct correspondence with CATF as well as the following resources: CATF Transportation Decarbonization Overview (February 2023) , CATF Transportation Decarbonization Program (November 2023) [24] “Clean Air Task Force has conducted extensive analysis to determine pathways to eliminate emissions from the global marine shipping sector, and has found that switching the sector from high-emitting fuels to zero-carbon fuels like hydrogen and ammonia has the greatest likelihood of success.” CATF (2021) [25] Examples: Transportation Deep Decarbonization Initiative Synthesis report(2021), Pathways to decarbonize marine shipping video (2021) [26] “Green maritime shipping corridors are an avenue for coordinating across stakeholder groups in specific high-potential geographies to align incentives, test-drive new technologies, target investments, and build public-private partnerships.” Our Shared Seas (2023) [27] 2020 budget: “Total Revenue $19,594,322” CATF (2020) [28] “My analysis suggests that adding CCS could be worth $5-6 billion for this power plant, while increasing emissions by 6 to 8 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent relative to closing the plant at its end of life.” Grubert (2023) [29] “Leveraging the demand for CO₂ from the Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) industry is a critical step to building out a robust ecosystem for large-scale CO₂ storage in saline sites.” CATF (2019) [30] “But the core of the climate case against EOR is simple: Climate change is an emergency. We need to bury lots of carbon, but it is crazy to let the oil and gas industry set the pace and the terms.” Vox (2019) [31] “Far from being low carbon, greenhouse gas emissions from the production of blue hydrogen are quite high, particularly due to the release of fugitive methane.” Haworth et al (2021) [32] “Far from being low carbon, greenhouse gas emissions from the production of blue hydrogen are quite high, particularly due to the release of fugitive methane.” Haworth et al (2021) [33] This is difficult in practice, and CDR could start well before 2050 to accommodate a more feasible trajectory of emissions reduction. It is followed by an increasing removal effort due to the rising RF induced by the fleet.” Sacchi et al (2023)

How We Determined Our 2021 Research Priorities // BACK This report was last updated in December 2021 and describes our approach to US Policy Change recommendations in 2020 and 2021. For an overview of our 2022 approach to recommendations and research, please see 2022 Updates to Giving Green's Approach and Recommendations . How did our team decide which approaches to policy change we would focus on in 2020 and 2021? In this document, we provide an overview of our team's use of the Importance, Tractability, and Neglectedness (ITN) framework to identify our research priorities within US climate policy change for 2020 and 2021. 2021-11 Research Priorities 2021 .pdf Download PDF Giving Green identified United States climate policy change as a key focus for our 2020 and 2021 recommendations. We believe that public policy will be a key driver of the technological and human behavior changes that are necessary to fight the climate crises. We focused on US policy because the US is the world’s second-largest emitter; it has outsized global influence; and because Giving Green’s staff is most familiar with the US policy systems, which therefore leverages our comparative advantage. Main Takeaway: Giving Green determined that (1) Activism and (2) Policy Advocacy are the two methods that are highest priority and we are focusing our research on these topics. To narrow down our research priorities, we tried to answer the question “what methods to achieve policy change are most impactful, solvable, and in need of additional support?” Accordingly, we ranked methods by their potential impact, their likelihood of happening (i.e. how solvable?), and the need for more funding in that method. The world is complicated, and organizations and activities will not generally neatly fit into one of these categories. However, this framework is designed to help us narrow down the field and focus further research on areas we think have the most promise. The findings of this exercise will help guide Giving Green’s research priorities and recommendations, but will not be binding. Download the full report for a more detailed explanation of our rankings and our process for arriving at them. Note: This is a non-partisan analysis (study or research) and is provided for educational purposes.

Good Energy Collective: Recommendation // BACK Good Energy Collective: Recommendation Last updated in November 2023. Good Energy Collective (Good Energy) is a policy research organization that supports advanced nuclear reactors–which are designed to be safer, cheaper, and more versatile than conventional reactors–as part of an equitable clean energy transition. Good Energy is one of the top climate nonprofits selected by Giving Green in 2023. We are excited about Good Energy because it provides a unique voice advocating for advanced nuclear power, which we believe could help increase demand for new nuclear designs nearing commercialization. Nuclear power plants generate electricity without emitting carbon dioxide or other pollutants and provide a consistent source of electricity to the grid. We think nuclear power can play an important part in decarbonization because it provides consistent, carbon-free energy with a small land footprint. As part of a diverse energy portfolio, it can complement other energy sources, such as wind and solar. Good Energy advocates for progressive US policies that support equitable deployment and engages with local communities to ensure broad support for advanced nuclear technologies. We believe Good Energy fills a neglected niche in increasing advanced nuclear reactor deployment and can effectively absorb additional funding. We believe its work could have global implications if it contributes to scaling advanced nuclear technologies in the US, which could give other countries the policies, technology, and/or general confidence to make nuclear energy part of their clean energy portfolio. We believe Good Energy has substantial growth potential and that, with increased funds, it could become more effective by scaling its community engagement and policy efforts. We previously recommended Good Energy in 2022 . For more information, see our deep dive research report , a summary below, and our broader nuclear power deep dive overview . What is Good Energy? Good Energy is a US-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit that supports advanced nuclear energy as part of an equitable clean energy transition. It was founded in 2020. How could Good Energy help address climate change? Nuclear power could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by replacing fossil fuels and contributing to a diverse energy portfolio. Building demand for advanced nuclear reactors could mitigate financial risks for companies and expand deployment. We think increased production could feed into a virtuous cycle by decreasing costs and amplifying political support, further expanding deployment. What does Good Energy do? Good Energy’s primary activities are community engagement and policy advocacy. Its engagement includes convening stakeholders and speaking with elected officials. It aims to build support in potential nuclear host communities by collaborating with environmental justice organizations, community-based organizations, and other nonprofits. Good Energy’s policy advocacy includes writing memos, submitting public comments, conducting technical analyses, and educating policymakers. What has Good Energy accomplished historically? In 2022, Good Energy’s community engagement work included co-sponsoring the Energy Communities Alliance Forum on Hosting New Nuclear Development, which brought together diverse stakeholders such as government officials, Tribal leaders, and industry to share best practices for siting nuclear projects. Good Energy also developed and advanced its ideas by engaging with a network of nuclear stakeholders. For example, Good Energy is part of a nonprofit working group that contributed to establishing the US Department of Energy’s Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations and offered recommendations on implementation. What’s new at Good Energy in 2023? In 2023, Good Energy focused on repurposing retiring coal plant sites into nuclear plant sites. It will start its on-the-ground community engagement work in late 2023. Additionally, it received a $2 million (USD) grant from the US Department of Energy to work on consent-based siting of nuclear waste. Good Energy also launched a fellowship program to increase underrepresented minority participation in the nuclear sector. By the end of 2023, Good Energy plans on adding six hires, effectively doubling its staff size from last year. What would Good Energy do with your donation? If Good Energy raised an additional $100,000, it would use this money towards working on efforts related to university microreactors and/or geospatial mapping of communities impacted by new energy infrastructure. An extra $1 million would boost its on-the-ground community engagement and enable Good Energy to expand its programs, potentially engaging in state legislation, addressing uranium mining issues, and growing its fellows program. Why is Giving Green excited about Good Energy? We think Good Energy has carved a unique niche in nuclear power advocacy by focusing on the intersection of expanded deployment, community engagement, and justice. As a relatively new and small organization, donations to Good Energy could help catalyze its growth and progress. Donate to Good Energy Collective to advance a justice- and community-centered vision of nuclear energy. Good Energy Collective is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization in the United States. This is a non-partisan analysis (study or research) and is provided for educational purposes.

Project Innerspace: Deep Dive // BACK This report was last updated in November 2023. Download the report here, or read the full text below. ProjectInnerSpaceDeepDive .pdf Download PDF • 1.01MB Table of contents Summary What is Project InnerSpace? How could Project InnerSpace help address climate change? Is there room for more funding? Are there major co-benefits or adverse effects? Key uncertainties and open questions Bottom line / next steps Summary 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 its resource mapping and funding efforts can help reduce project risks and attract more traditional investors, fostering innovation and driving down 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. What is Project InnerSpace? Project InnerSpace is an organization that focuses on expanding geothermal energy globally. Its core activities include mapping subsurface data that can help characterize geothermal resources and supporting geothermal projects that may otherwise experience a funding “valley of death.” It also builds momentum for geothermal energy in the public and private sectors by hosting its annual PIVOT conference, participating in efforts to roadmap geothermal expansion in the US, and increasing awareness of the geothermal sector. How could Project InnerSpace reduce greenhouse gases? Geothermal energy can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by providing carbon-free heat and electricity instead of burning fossil fuels. We think Project InnerSpace can reduce greenhouse gases by increasing how quickly next-generation geothermal technologies are deployed relative to the counterfactual. Project InnerSpace’s theory of change: We believe that Project InnerSpace’s global geothermal resources map can reduce early-stage risks for geothermal companies by providing relevant data, decreasing exploration costs, and shortening pre-development timelines. We also think increased data access can support policy development and advocacy. Additionally, we believe that funding early-stage geothermal projects can reduce financial risks and bring in more investors. We believe building momentum for geothermal energy in the US has secondary effects that increase the likelihood that supportive policies for geothermal technologies are passed. Combined, we think Project InnerSpace’s activities can speed up the rate at which next-generation geothermal technologies are deployed and costs go down. Is there room for more funding? Project InnerSpace said it would use the marginal dollar donated to fund its geothermal resources mapping project, which has a self-reported funding gap of $18 million. Receiving an additional $100,000 beyond Project InnerSpace’s budget would enable it to hire program managers who could help conduct “deep dives” into new cities or regions for its map. It would use an additional $1 million to support two to three research projects related to its mapping efforts. Are there major co-benefits or adverse effects? A major co-benefit of Project InnerSpace’s work is its potential for job creation. One potential downside of its work is the risk of conflicts of interest arising from the involvement of oil and gas industry participants in expanding the geothermal sector. We describe geothermal energy’s major co-benefits and adverse effects more generally in our geothermal energy deep dive report . Key uncertainties and open questions: Our key uncertainties include the expected value of different next-generation geothermal technologies and Project InnerSpace’s continued ability to execute as it scales its organization. Bottom line / next steps: We recommend Project InnerSpace as a top nonprofit organization based on its potential for high impact, its influence in the geothermal sector, and our assessment of its ability to execute. We also think its emphasis on fast iteration and quickly getting next-generation technologies on a learning curve complements that of Clean Air Task Force , another Giving Green recommendation, whose geothermal workstream focuses on super-hot rock geothermal energy. What is Project InnerSpace? Project InnerSpace is a US-based organization that focuses on expanding geothermal energy globally. [1] It includes both a nonprofit 501(c)(3) arm and a for-profit impact fund.[ 2] For more information on geothermal energy, please see our geothermal deep dive report . Project InnerSpace describes its core activities as two “phases” running in parallel. [3] Phase 1 focuses on mapping subsurface data that can help characterize geothermal resources near major metropolitan areas. Phase 2 focuses on supporting geothermal projects that may otherwise experience a funding “valley of death.” Outside of these core activities, Project InnerSpace is also building momentum for geothermal energy in the public and private sectors. Project InnerSpace was founded in 2022. [4] It is led by Jamie Beard, the founder of the Geothermal Entrepreneurship Organization, the Texas Geothermal Institute, and the PIVOT conference series, which focuses on geothermal issues; she also serves on the board of the Texas Geothermal Energy Alliance, an industry association. [5] In August 2023, Project InnerSpace reported that its staff includes 17 full-time equivalent employees. [6] How could Project InnerSpace help address climate change? Project InnerSpace’s strategies Geothermal energy can help address climate change by providing carbon-free heat and electricity instead of burning fossil fuels. As a source of clean firm power, geothermal energy is well-suited to complement intermittent renewables, such as wind and solar. Consequently, we think an energy portfolio that includes geothermal energy provides a more feasible path to net-zero emissions than one based on intermittent renewables alone. Next-generation geothermal technologies, such as enhanced and advanced geothermal systems, could be especially promising for expanding geothermal deployment globally. For more information, please see our geothermal energy deep dive report . Project InnerSpace helps companies working on next-generation geothermal technologies reduce financial risks and bridge funding gaps. We think this support can accelerate learning-by-doing and drive down costs faster than the counterfactual. We summarize Project InnerSpace’s activities below: Phase 1: Global subsurface resource characterization Project InnerSpace is developing a publicly available map of relevant subsurface data (e.g., heat depth, rock types) to help characterize geothermal resources. [7] The map is intended to help with resource characterization globally and will have higher resolution data near major metropolitan areas to help with project siting. This higher resolution data will include subsurface and surface data at 1-kilometer resolution and techno-economic analyses. [8] Project InnerSpace will collate and digitize existing subsurface data from sources such as oil and gas companies and geological surveys. [9] In places where there have not been oil and gas drilling operations, Project InnerSpace will extrapolate based on known geological features and water well data collected from local agencies and use artificial intelligence to predict the data’s suitability using training data from places with oil and gas wells. [10] Resource characterization mapping will begin with Africa, the Americas, and Asia. [11] Project InnerSpace prioritized locations based on where the world's largest population centers will be in 2050 and where additional coal and natural gas capacity is expected. [12] Project InnerSpace said that, ideally, Phase 1 would include data useful for the world’s top 300 population centers. [13] We understand that Project InnerSpace’s map could help reduce financial risks related to exploration costs and unlock more private investments from traditional project financing mechanisms, which could accelerate deployment. Phase 2: Financing geothermal projects Project InnerSpace’s nonprofit fund will support community-scale geothermal projects, such as geothermal heat for greenhouses and heating-and-cooling, in low- and middle-income countries. [14] Project InnerSpace said these projects tend to cost between $5,000 and $50,000 and often go unfunded because existing financing mechanisms do not support them. [15] In late 2023, Project InnerSpace will launch its for-profit impact fund, the Geothermal Exploration Opportunities Fund, which will operate separately from Project InnerSpace. The fund will support teams working on first-of-their-kind projects. [16] Funded projects must involve technology transfer between the oil and gas industry and the geothermal industry. [17] Project InnerSpace said this work could help reduce costs through learning-by-doing and catalyze more funding from traditional funding mechanisms. [18] Building momentum for geothermal energy in the public and private sectors – Our understanding is that Project InnerSpace has helped generate interest in geothermal energy on several different fronts. For example, Project InnerSpace hosts PIVOT, a global conference series on geothermal energy that aims to “build momentum within the oil and gas industry toward making an urgent pivot to geothermal energy production.” [19] Project InnerSpace has also participated in efforts to make a case for geothermal investment in Texas and roadmap its future. [20] Project InnerSpace’s theory of change We think Project InnerSpace's core activities—mapping geothermal resources and financing geothermal projects—can lower financial risks for companies and boost geothermal deployment relative to the counterfactual (Figure 1). We also think Project InnerSpace’s efforts to promote geothermal energy can have secondary effects that raise the odds of passing supportive US policies. We also believe Project InnerSpace’s mapping efforts can be a useful tool for policy development and advocacy in its mapped areas, making it more likely that supportive policies will be passed. We think these inputs can speed up geothermal innovation, enhance global spillover effects, and accelerate emissions reductions compared to the counterfactual. Figure 1: Project InnerSpace’s theory of change We examine the evidence for how well Project InnerSpace executes its inputs in the sections below. Assessment of Project InnerSpace’s ability to execute its activities Developing a global subsurface resource characterization map Our understanding is that legacy subsurface data are scattered across agencies and oil and gas companies and that this data could be helpful for geothermal resource mapping. We are optimistic about Project InnerSpace’s ability to develop a global subsurface resource characterization map because, according to numerous geothermal researchers and funders we have interviewed, Project InnerSpace is a highly engaged convener of different geothermal and oil and gas companies and research universities. Also, as of November 2023, it has already made several grants supporting its Phase 1 work. [21] For example, it granted $700,000 to the International Heat Flow Commission and the German Research Centre for Geoscience GFZ, Potsdam, to support their work revising the Global Heat Flow Database. [22] We have a positive impression of Project InnerSpace’s ability to make the connections needed for its mapping project in terms of finding the requisite data, recruiting talent, and communicating its findings. We also think it is a positive sign that Project InnerSpace is collaborating with Google on its core activities, including resource mapping, because we think Google can likely contribute its data and software capabilities. [23] Funding geothermal projects We think Project InnerSpace’s nonprofit arm will probably successfully fund community-scale geothermal projects. We think these projects’ feasibility is likely high because our understanding is that they face financing barriers and not technical barriers. We have not evaluated Project InnerSpace’s for-profit impact fund. Building momentum for geothermal energy in the public and private sectors We have a positive impression of Project InnerSpace’s ability to build momentum for geothermal energy in the public and private sectors. For example, before Project InnerSpace’s inception, Jamie Beard played a significant role in promoting geothermal energy in Texas. Her collaborative efforts, involving several Texas academics, culminated in The Future of Geothermal in Texas report , offering evidence-based recommendations for expanding geothermal energy in the state. In 2023, Project InnerSpace initiated similar initiatives in five other states that will lead to comparable reports. [24] Also, Project InnerSpace, as part of a cross-industry consortium, was awarded a US Department of Energy (DOE) grant to promote technology transfer between the geothermal and oil and gas industries. [25] Beyond direct technology transfer, we believe this work could also assist fossil fuel workers in transitioning to new jobs and make a strong case for the geothermal industry's job-creating potential. Anecdotally, we have heard from numerous geothermal stakeholders that, despite being a new organization, Project InnerSpace has played an important role in generating excitement about geothermal energy. We believe this is reflected in Project InnerSpace’s press coverage in 2023, which includes mentions and profiles in major media outlets, including the New York Times, WIRED, and National Public Radio. [26] Examining the assumptions behind Project InnerSpace’s theory of change Below, we discuss and evaluate the main assumptions related to our understanding of Project InnerSpace’s theory of change. We focus primarily on its resource characterization mapping because that is where it would most likely spend marginal donations. For each assumption, we rank whether we have low, medium, or high certainty about the assumption. [27] Our assessment is based on both primary and secondary evidence, as well as our general impression of the plausibility of the assumption. Importantly, a number of the stages of Project InnerSpace’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. Additional assumptions that are related to next-generation geothermal technologies but are not specific to Project InnerSpace can be found in our geothermal energy deep dive report . 1. Resource characterization mapping addresses a substantial obstacle to increased geothermal deployment ( high certainty ) We have high certainty that resource characterization mapping addresses a substantial obstacle to increased geothermal deployment. We understand that geothermal projects face the highest level of risk in their initial stages. Specifically, before drilling and testing, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the quality of geothermal resources at a given site. During the exploration stage, developers can fail to find resources suitable for commercially viable production. [28] (See Figure 2 for a conceptual model of risks and costs in geothermal projects.) Consequently, this high risk can hinder developers’ ability to secure funding for exploration and initial drilling, leading to delays or stalled projects. [29] Despite directly accounting for a small portion of project costs, pre-drilling and exploratory activities are critical to project success. [30] Figure 2: Conceptual model of risk and cumulative costs for geothermal projects. Figure from Energy Sector Management Assistance Program, "Comparative Analysis of Approaches to Geothermal Resource Risk Mitigation." Therefore, we believe that geothermal resource mapping can enhance the likelihood of project success by helping with mitigating risks, shortening development timelines (and therefore reducing costs), and attracting more investors. We think this perspective aligns with some of the findings in DOE’s GeoVision report, which advocates for increased resource assessments and improved site characterizations. [31] We also think Project InnerSpace’s mapping could help address some issues related to data scarcity and developing effective policies. For example, the absence of accessible and relevant data has hindered the development of renewable energy in Nigeria. [32] Indeed, geothermal’s potential in Nigeria is not yet quantified and was excluded from the International Renewable Energy Agency’s roadmap for transitioning Nigeria away from fossil fuels. [33] We’re under the impression that improving the quality and quantity of geothermal-related in data-scarce areas could help advocates develop policy recommendations and build momentum for geothermal energy, increasing the likelihood that supportive policies are passed. As a caveat, we think that the usefulness of the geothermal resource map will depend on data quality and representativeness. We are concerned that legacy subsurface data will be location-biased and exhibit clustering (e.g., boreholes are located close to other boreholes), which increases model uncertainty. [34] We believe Project InnerSpace is aware of potential data quality issues and has plans to ensure quality control. [35] 2. Project InnerSpace is speeding up resource characterization mapping in the Global South relative to the counterfactual ( high certainty ) We have high certainty that Project InnerSpace is speeding up resource characterization mapping in the Global South relative to the counterfactual. US entities working on resource characterization include the US Geological Survey and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. [36] Our understanding is that even with both those major entities working on resource characterization, the US still needs more data to reduce uncertainty and identify more resources. [37] We think if there’s a need for more data in the Global North, there’s probably a similar need in the Global South, where funding is likely scarcer. Additionally, we believe private companies are not motivated to make global maps public since it would benefit their competitors. According to Project InnerSpace, if it did not exist, some of the mapping it plans on doing could be funded by governments, but this would probably occur on a piecemeal basis with varying quality and consistency. [38] 3. Improved geothermal resource characterization will lead to more projects being developed, and an increased number of projects developed will lead to lower costs ( medium certainty ) We have medium certainty that improved geothermal resource characterization will lead to more projects being developed and that an increased number of projects developed will lead to lower costs. As described earlier in this section, we think that Project InnerSpace’s resource characterization and prospecting map will decrease project risks and help projects attract more investments. In turn, we think that removing these obstacles will increase the number of developed geothermal projects. However, we are unsure of how much mapping will increase the number of projects developed because exploration risks are not the only challenge that geothermal projects face. Indeed, geothermal projects face a mix of technical and non-technical barriers, and we do not think mapping is the sole solution for pushing next-generation geothermal technologies forward. We think increasing the number of projects developed will lead to lower costs because we believe some next-generation geothermal technologies will follow a learning curve. For example, we think it is possible that enhanced geothermal systems, whereby man-made reservoirs are created by injecting water underground, can become cheaper, similar to how hydraulic fracturing became cheaper over time. Namely, both technologies can modify rock permeability and create the same wells repeatedly, enabling learning-by-doing. However, there is always considerable uncertainty over what kind of learning curve a new technology will follow. For more information, see our geothermal energy deep dive report . Is there room for more funding? Project InnerSpace’s current funding status Project InnerSpace is a new organization without explicit budgets or funds in reserve. Its mapping work has an ambitious, forward-looking budget of $18 million, while as of May 2023, it has a self-reported total of $6 million in the bank. [39] It uses this funding to pay its team and conduct Phase 1 grants. [40] Project InnerSpace’s major funders include the United States Department of Energy, Schmidt Futures, the Grantham Foundation, the Greenbridge Family Foundation, and the Bernard and Anne Spitzer Charitable Trust. [41] Project InnerSpace said its collaboration with Google will result in in-kind but not financial support. [42] We think it’s likely that Project InnerSpace will continue to receive funding from some subset of these funders and gain more funders as it becomes more well-known. However, we think that the scope of Project InnerSpace’s work means it can comfortably absorb a significant amount of additional funding. The marginal dollar donated would support Project InnerSpace’s Phase 1 work. Project InnerSpace reported a funding gap of $18 million for its mapping work.[43] Project InnerSpace based this estimate on its assessment of the number of locations where data are stored, the amount of data that would need to be digitized, and how much it has paid for this type of work in the past. [44] It is estimated that each additional city would cost between $300,000 and $1 million, depending on data complexity and availability. [45] The cost breakdown of Project InnerSpace’s Phase 1 funding gap is as follows: Table 1: Cost breakdown of Phase 1’s funding gap Item Cost (USD) Data collection and digitization: Rolling out Phase 1 in stages $8 million Data collection and digitization: Setting up an enduring structure for Phase 1 $6 million Increasing the map’s resolution and adding techno-economic analyses $4 million Total $18 million Of the $18 million, about $8 million would be spent on rolling out Phase 1 in stages based on available data and locations that Project InnerSpace sees as strategic priorities for geothermal over the coming years. [46] Another $6 million would be used to set up an enduring structure for updating the map as new data become available. [47] Project InnerSpace envisions a massive endeavor where thousands of academics and entities worldwide submit new data and analysis that is quality controlled, streamlined, and incorporated into the data pool regularly for years. [48] The remaining $4 million accounts for the resources required to increase its project’s resolution and include techno-economic analyses. [49] Project InnerSpace said 80% of the money going towards Phase 1 would be regranted to other organizations conducting this work. [50] Potential grantees include research universities selected through a competitive process and paid personnel for access to their data and time. [51] Project InnerSpace said that if it received an additional $100,000, it would hire program managers to push forward the Phase 1 work. [52] According to Project InnerSpace, each new hire would enable a deep dive into a new region or city, and they would also be involved in data collection and digitization. [53] It said it would spend an additional $1,000,000 on completing two or three Phase 1 research projects. [54] We think the numbers that Project InnerSpace estimated for its work seem reasonable, given the size of this task and the amount of labor involved. We therefore think it’s likely that Project InnerSpace can absorb more funding productively. However, we have some uncertainty about how much Phase 1 will cost in the end because Project InnerSpace’s work is the first of its kind, and there is no existing model or roadmap that we can use to estimate costs. Project InnerSpace’s recent DOE award is highly restricted and would not fund its core activities. In 2023, Project InnerSpace and two partner organizations received $165 million from DOE. [55] According to Project InnerSpace, this funding is restricted and does not cover its core activities. [56] Additionally, $155 million of this funding will be regranted through a competitive solicitation process; the remaining $10 million will be split between the partner organizations, with Project InnerSpace receiving $3 million for five years of work. [57] Because this funding will not cover Project InnerSpace’s core activities and is relatively low when divided across five years, we think that this grant should not significantly alter our view of Project InnerSpace’s room for additional funding. Are there major co-benefits or adverse effects? We think the primary co-benefit of Project InnerSpace’s work is its potential for job creation. We think that promoting technology transfer from the oil and gas industry to geothermal could help former fossil fuel workers find high-paying jobs in the geothermal industry. In addition to creating jobs, this helps enable a just transition for former fossil fuel workers and could result in less backlash against the green transition from certain constituencies. We think the primary adverse effect of Project InnerSpace’s work is the potential for conflicting interests from oil and gas involvement if new geothermal development is centralized within the oil and gas sector. We outline our concerns with oil and gas involvement in our geothermal energy deep dive report under key uncertainties and open questions. Key uncertainties and open questions Funding additionality – We believe Project InnerSpace has successfully found funding partners and collaborators. Also, we are under the impression that geothermal energy has received greater media attention in recent years, which we think could drive more donations to Project InnerSpace. We, therefore, think it’s possible that Project InnerSpace can ramp up funding, even in the absence of a Giving Green recommendation. Nonetheless, we think Project InnerSpace’s funding gap is large and can absorb more funding given the scale of its resource characterization mapping project. Based on this, we think a Giving Green recommendation would remain additional. Room for more funding – There is uncertainty on the exact cost of Project InnerSpace’s resource characterization project because it is the first of its kind. Therefore, we may have overestimated Project InnerSpace’s room for more funding. At the same time, we think that it is possible that we may have done the opposite and underestimated its funding need because of the amount of labor that resource characterization mapping may entail. Betting on different next-generation geothermal technologies – We are uncertain about the expected value of different next-generation geothermal technologies. Giving Green is hedging its bets by supporting Project InnerSpace and Clean Air Task Force (CATF), which take different approaches to advancing geothermal energy. Our understanding is that Project InnerSpace focuses on technologies that are new but further along in their development than super-hot rock geothermal, which is CATF’s primary focus. We think super-hot rock geothermal energy is less of a sure bet, but if it becomes commercially viable, it could offer cheaper and abundant carbon-free energy. Due to this uncertainty, we think it is important for us to be technology-agnostic and diversify the next-generation geothermal technologies we support. Ability to execute as it grows – As of August 2023, Project InnerSpace expects its core team to grow from 17 full-time equivalent (FTE) to 50 FTEs by the end of 2024. [58] Our perception is that organizations undergoing rapid growth often experience “growing pains” if they do not have sufficient operational capacity and structure to carry out their work. Project InnerSpace said it would protect against this concern by leaning on its advisors who understand scale (e.g., leaders in technology, venture capital, and impact investing) and that it is confident that it will attract the talent it needs to achieve its goals, given that international subject matter experts and entrepreneurs have approached Project InnerSpace to volunteer their time. [59] We do not have reasons to suspect Project InnerSpace is experiencing growing pains, but we will monitor this uncertainty. Project InnerSpace’s cost-effectiveness – We chose not to quantify Project InnerSpace’s cost-effectiveness given the high uncertainty across key parameters. [60] Instead, our general research into the geothermal sector forms the basis of our evaluation. Our assessment of geothermal's potential to scale widely and cheaply informs our expectation that the contributions of highly effective organizations supporting next-generation geothermal technologies could influence large emissions reductions. Our analysis of the technical, policy, investment, and philanthropy landscapes enables us to identify organizational strategies that we think are highly effective. By not modeling Project InnerSpace’s organizational cost-effectiveness, we lose the ability to compare its cost-effectiveness with that of other giving opportunities. However, it’s important to note that our cost-effectiveness analyses are generally uncertain and mainly serve to check if an opportunity’s cost-effectiveness is roughly in line with our baseline for a top recommendation ($1 per ton of CO2-equivalent). Bottom line / next steps We classify Project InnerSpace as one of our top recommendations to address climate change. 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 likely has room for more funding. Also, we think its strategy of fast iteration and quickly getting next-generation technologies on a learning curve complements that of CATF, another Giving Green recommendation, whose geothermal workstream focuses on superhot rock geothermal energy. We think this portfolio approach of supporting different geothermal technologies and strategies helps increase the likelihood of advancing the geothermal sector. We plan to continue assessing our key uncertainties and believe that we will be able to substantially improve our understanding of the severity and importance of these uncertainties as Project InnerSpace scales its operations in 2024. Endnotes Project InnerSpace 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 Project InnerSpace, and not on its for-profit Geothermal Exploration Opportunities Fund. This non-partisan analysis is provided for educational purposes. We conducted expert interviews regarding Project InnerSpace to inform this deep dive. We corresponded with Project InnerSpace multiple times to stay updated on its strategic priorities, current activities, and room for more funding. We also reviewed materials on Project InnerSpace’s website and media coverage. Unless otherwise cited, information in this deep dive comes from direct correspondence with Project InnerSpace. 1. US base: “Locations (1) Primary: Houston, US.” LinkedIn, Project InnerSpace . 501(c)(3): “Project InnerSpace is a 501(c)3 non-profit focused on expanding the use of geothermal energy globally.” Project InnerSpace, “About ” n.d. 2. Project InnerSpace 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 Project InnerSpace and not on its impact fund. 3. Giving Green conversation with Project InnerSpace, 2023-05-04. 4. “Project InnerSpace (InnerSpace), a multi-phase initiative focused on accelerating global geothermal prospecting and development has launched.” ThinkGeoenergy, "Project InnerSpace Launches to Accelerate Geothermal Anywhere" 2022. 5. “InnerSpace is led by Jamie Beard, an internationally recognized leader in the ‘geothermal anywhere’ movement, founder of the Geothermal Entrepreneurship Organization (GEO), the Texas Geothermal Institute (TGI), and the Pivot ‘From Hydrocarbons to Heat’ conference series. She serves on the Board of the Texas Geothermal Energy Alliance (TxGEA), an industry association focused on supporting the growth and development of geothermal in Texas.” ThinkGeoenergy, "Project InnerSpace Launches to Accelerate Geothermal Anywhere" 2022. 6. Giving Green correspondence with Project InnerSpace, 2023-08-17. 7. “Phase 1 of Project InnerSpace will produce high-resolution geothermal prospecting maps to provide information about the quality and depth of geothermal resources within a 100 kilometer radius of the world’s population centers, serving as a project development and prospecting model of accelerated development of geothermal resources. Phase 1 will convene a global team of subsurface experts to publish a freely accessible, publicly available set of geothermal resource maps, which will be utilized by industry, startups, and funding entities to reduce pre-project subsurface and project siting risk.” Project InnerSpace, "Introduction to Project InnerSpace" 2022. 8. Giving Green conversation with Project InnerSpace, 2023-10-11. 9. Giving Green conversation with Project InnerSpace, 2023-05-04. 10. Giving Green conversation with Project InnerSpace, 2023-10-11. 11. Giving Green conversation with Project InnerSpace, 2023-10-11. 12. Giving Green correspondence with Project InnerSpace, 2023-08-17. 13. Giving Green correspondence with Project InnerSpace, 2023-08-17. 14. Giving Green conversation with Project InnerSpace, 2023-07-20. 15. Giving Green conversation with Project InnerSpace, 2023-10-11. 16. “PHASE II: A global deployment sprint for first-of-a-kind geothermal projects. The Geothermal Exploration Opportunities Fund (“GeoFund”) will deploy teams of innovators into the field to build first of a kind geothermal pilots. These teams will accelerate and demonstrate the unique ability of geothermal resources to decarbonize tough-to-address sectors, such as industrial processes and heat.” Project InnerSpace, “About ” n.d. 17. Giving Green conversation with Project InnerSpace, 2023-10-11. 18. “The goal of Phase 2 is to drive fast field development in geothermal while concurrently providing the impact of bleeding-edge technologies and methods on geothermal projects, driving down costs through learning and iteration in the field. By helping teams traverse the funding valley of death for first of their kind projects, we will unlock significant private investment for subsequent geothermal projects by traditional funding mechanisms.” Project InnerSpace, "Introduction to Project InnerSpace" 2022. 19. PIVOT: “PIVOT is a global conference series launched in 2020 featuring thought leaders and change makers who are building the future of geothermal energy. PIVOT’s mission is to build momentum within the oil and gas industry toward making an urgent pivot to geothermal energy production, with the goal of global, scalable geothermal development across the industry by 2030.” Project InnerSpace, “Pivot 2023 ” 2023. Giving Green note: Project InnerSpace hosts PIVOT in partnership with other organizations. “In the spirit of this theme, we are hosting this year’s PIVOT in partnership with The World Geothermal Congress, Geothermal Rising, and the Society of Petroleum Engineers to bring you an action-packed month of in-person and virtual events around the world.” Project InnerSpac, “Pivot 2023 ” 2023. 20. Jamie Beard and Bryant Jones from Project InnerSpace are listed as lead authors of The Future of Geothermal in Texas. University of Texas, Austin, "The Future of Geothermal in Texas" 2023. 21. As of November 2023, Project InnerSpace has five principal investigators listed under its Phase 1 Research and Development Portfolio. Project InnerSpace, “About ” n.d. 22. “Project InnerSpace has launched a two-year collaboration with the International Heat Flow Commission (IHFC) and the German Research Centre for Geoscience GFZ, Potsdam (GFZ) to accelerate the Global Heat Flow Database assessment for geothermal analyses. The effort, supported by a global team of scientists, is funded by a $700K Project InnerSpace grant and led by Dr. Sven Fuchs of GFZ, the custodian of the IHFC’s heat flow database. The collaboration supports the ongoing systematic revision of the Global Heat Flow Database, currently performed by a network of voluntary scientists. Since 2020, researchers have been updating incorrect, inconsistent, and missing data entries according to a new modernized metadata scheme, and categorizing each data entry based on data quality. The 2023 release of the Global Heat Flow Database had recently been published by IHFC.” ThinkGeoEnergy, "Project InnerSpace launches collaboration for global heat flow mapping" 2023. 23. “Project InnerSpace has announced a partnership with Google focused on expanding the use and adoption of geothermal energy worldwide. The collaboration unites the subsurface expertise and resources of Project InnerSpace, a non-profit organization focused on removing barriers to the growth and development of geothermal energy globally, and the data and software capabilities of Google, a global technology leader working to run its operations on 24/7 carbon-free energy and contribute to the decarbonization of global energy systems. Project InnerSpace and Google intend to leverage their respective strengths to address critical challenges facing geothermal development, including the development of a global geothermal resource mapping and assessment tool.” ThinkGeoEnergy, "Project InnerSpace partners with Google to advance geothermal development" 2023. 24. Giving Green correspondence with Project InnerSpace, 2023-11-02. 25. “The US Department of Energy (DOE) has awarded a $165 million "Geothermal Energy from Oil and Gas Demonstrated Engineering" (GEODE) grant to a consortium formed by Project InnerSpace, Society of Petroleum Engineers International (SPE), and Geothermal Rising (GR). The cross-industry collaboration formed by the consortium will engage with oil and gas experts, geothermal startups, and other stakeholders to build consensus around strategies and opportunities for geothermal innovation. The consortium will leverage the oil and gas industry's 100+ years of experience and technological developments in drilling and subsurface engineering to address and overcome challenges currently constraining geothermal development.” Journal of Petroleum Technology, "DOE Awards SPE and Consortium Partners $165 Million Grant To Advance Geothermal" 2023. 26. New York Times: ““It’s been hard for geothermal to fight its way into the conversation,” said Jamie Beard, founder of Project InnerSpace, a Texas-based nonprofit that promotes geothermal.” New York Times, "There’s a Vast Source of Clean Energy Beneath Our Feet. And a Race to Tap It." 2023. WIRED: WIRED, "Where to Find the Energy to Save the World" 2023. National Public Radio: National Public Radio, "How can we tap into the vast power of geothermal energy?" 2022. 27. 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 = 0-60%, medium = 70-80%, high = 80-100%. 28. “In new (“green field”) geothermal projects, the highest risks are faced during the early stages of surface reconnaissance and exploration drilling (Stages I & II). During these early stages of development, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the flow capacity and temperature of the resource, namely, the ability to drill commercially productive wells that will supply a specified generation capacity for a specified length of time is poorly known. This leads to uncertainty in the likely overall cost to extract the geothermal fluids and reinjected the heat-depleted brine to replenish the reservoir. This uncertainty is considerably reduced after drilling and testing have confirmed the resource availability (following the completion of Stage II), which in turn allows the financial feasibility of proceeding with investment in subsequent development stages (Stages III and IV) to be ascertained.” Energy Sector Management Assistance Program,"Comparative Analysis of Approaches to Geothermal Resource Risk Mitigation" 2016. 29. “While modest in comparison to the total cost of developing all of the stages of a geothermal project, the inability to raise funds for exploration and initial drilling can delay or sometimes even stall geothermal projects. Raising this risk capital can be particularly challenging for private-sector geothermal developers, since exploration drilling is typically funded with owner equity, which can be lost if the project turns out not to be feasible. Therefore, real or perceived “resource risk” has become a common barrier to advancing geothermal development around the world.” Energy Sector Management Assistance Program, "Comparative Analysis of Approaches to Geothermal Resource Risk Mitigation" 2016. 30. Small share of project costs: “The costs of pre-drilling and exploration drilling activities are comparatively small with respect to overall development costs; however, they directly influence subsequent drilling success rates and thus have a major financial impact on projects. In a 2016 analysis, Wall and Dobson found that exploration drilling results led to drilling full-sized development wells less than one third of the time. Exploration, confirmation, and development-well drilling collectively account for 30%–50% of the costs of geothermal development (Bromley et al. 2010). The cascading effects of exploration activities—from pre-drilling geotechnical studies through exploration, confirmation, and development drilling—have a collective impact on overall project costs and success.” US Department of Energy, "GeoVision" 2019. Percentage of project costs: The Future of Geothermal in Texas, a report that includes various Project InnerSpace staff as lead authors, estimated that pre-development surveys, exploration, and appraisal constitute approximately 10 percent of total expenses for geothermal projects. See Table 5.3. Project cost phasing by geothermal technology. University of Texas, Austin, "The Future of Geothermal in Texas" 2023. 31. "Variables such as market, transmission, and stakeholder support for a project cannot be determined without first understanding the resource potential— that is, where is the resource and what is its grade or quality? As such, the resulting economic determinations are only as accurate as the quality of the resource assessment data on which they are based. Mitigating uncertainty in resource assessments lowers the risk of unproductive exploration, thus reducing development costs.” Department of Energy, "GeoVision" 2019. 32. “Poor access to accurate and timely data or information on renewable energy has been a major barrier for effective policy and decision making in Nigeria. For example, it is difficult to ascertain the total wattage number of solar PV installations operational across the country. This is consistent with Sen and Ganguly [50] assertion that there is a lack of reliable data without which the generated output is likely impossible to be calculated. The absence of data recording stations constitutes a major barrier to the development of renewable energy, such as solar energy in Nigeria. Arguably, a lack of access to relevant data and inaccurate statistics remain a major barrier for renewable energy development in Nigeria.” Adejanyu et al. 2020 . 33. “Apart from solar and hydro, there is a considerable dearth of information regarding the potential of renewable resources in the country. There is a need for comprehensive assessment of wind energy potential in the country for both on- and offshore wind. As observed from the analysis, the potential for geothermal, wave and tidal energy is yet to be quantified and thus, no plans yet to develop these renewable energy resources in the country. It is recommended that the federal government perform a detailed assessment to have a robust database of Nigeria’s renewable energy potential. This will help to support planning for renewable energy development and also show the possible locations for renewables deployment.” IRENA, "Renewable Energy Roadmap: Nigeria" 2023. 34. “Both borehole and seismic reflection data show significant clustering, with the borehole data also exhibiting a clustering and sampling bias with respect to depth. Non-representative sampling is an unavoidable consequence of collecting data to delineate resources for the exploration and production of geological resources (see Pyrcz and Deutsch, 2003). In the case of restricted depth of investigations during drilling this can also result in the underlying geological intervals not being sufficiently sampled to have a representative dataset, (e.g. Pyrcz and Deutsch, 2003). The ability to predict subsurface properties, such as temperature, relies on calibrating models against existing data. If the existing data are clustered, and there is a significant sampling bias then making predictions, based on models, away from data rich areas inevitably comes with an increased uncertainty. Representative datasets and associated statistics are vital for uncertainty modeling as sampling bias will bias any analysis of the uncertainties (Pyrcz and White., 2015).” Ireland et al. 2021 . 35. Giving Green correspondence with Project InnerSpace, 2023-08-17. 36. “The U.S. Geological Survey and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory developed national-scale assessments of conventional hydrothermal resources and EGS resources. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates more than 30 GWe of undiscovered conventional hydrothermal resource potential in the United States (Williams et al. 2008), and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (Augustine 2016) estimates more than 5,000 GWe of EGS potential at depths between 3 and 7 kilometers (about 2 to 4 miles) across the country.” Department of Energy, "GeoVision" 2019. 37. “ Improving the quantity and spatial resolution of national-scale assessment data will reduce uncertainty and can potentially identify more resources (in terms of quantity and geographic distribution) than estimated as of 2017. As an example, the GeoVision analysis considered sensitivity runs comparing regional, high-resolution EGS resource assessments with broader national-scale data assessments based on EGS resource data from Southern Methodist University. The result was the identification of more than 84 GWe of additional resources in the Great Basin area alone (Augustine et al. 2019).” Department of Energy, "GeoVision" 2019. 38. Giving Green correspondence with Project InnerSpace, 2023-08-17. 39. Giving Green conversation with Project InnerSpace, 2023-05-04. 40. Giving Green conversation with Project InnerSpace, 2023-05-04. 41. Giving Green conversation with Project InnerSpace, 2023-07-20. 42. Google collaboration: “Project InnerSpace has announced a partnership with Google focused on expanding the use and adoption of geothermal energy worldwide.” ThinkGeoEnergy, "Project InnerSpace partners with Google to advance geothermal development" 2023. Financial support: Giving Green conversation with Project InnerSpace, 2023-10-11. 43. Giving Green conversation with Project InnerSpace, 2023-05-04. 44. Giving Green conversation with Project InnerSpace, 2023-07-20. 45. Giving Green correspondence with Project InnerSpace, 2023-08-17. 46. Giving Green correspondence with Project InnerSpace, 2023-08-17. 47. Giving Green correspondence with Project InnerSpace, 2023-08-17. 48. Giving Green correspondence with Project InnerSpace, 2023-08-17. 49. Giving Green conversation with Project InnerSpace, 2023-10-11. 50. Giving Green conversation with Project InnerSpace, 2023-07-20. 51. Giving Green conversation with Project InnerSpace, 2023-07-20. 52. Giving Green conversation with Project InnerSpace, 2023-07-20. 53. Giving Green correspondence with Project InnerSpace, 2023-08-17. 54. Giving Green conversation with Project InnerSpace, 2023-07-20. 55. “The US Department of Energy (DOE) has awarded a $165 million "Geothermal Energy from Oil and Gas Demonstrated Engineering" (GEODE) grant to a consortium formed by Project InnerSpace, Society of Petroleum Engineers International (SPE), and Geothermal Rising (GR).” Journal of Petroleum Technology, "DOE Awards SPE and Consortium Partners $165 Million Grant To Advance Geothermal" 2023. 56. Giving Green conversation with Project InnerSpace, 2023-07-20. 57. Giving Green conversation with Project InnerSpace, 2023-07-20. 58. Giving Green correspondence with Project InnerSpace, 2023-08-17. 59. Giving Green correspondence with Project InnerSpace, 2023-08-17. 60. As an example, some key parameters could include: geothermal’s percent share of the global energy portfolio, which varies by country; the amount of fossil fuel burning that it displaces, which varies by country; the number of years which Project InnerSpace’s activities speed up geothermal development relative to the counterfactual; the percent likelihood of success that activities by industry, nonprofits, and governments speed up geothermal development; the percent that Project InnerSpace contributes to sped up geothermal development relative to other actors; and global spillover effects from Project InnerSpace’s activities.

ESG Funds & Climate Impact // 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. Download the full report: 2021-11 ESG Funds & Climate Impact .pdf Download PDF Note: This article is intended for research and information purposes only in order to review the potential positive climate impacts of available investment opportunities, not their financial performance, and therefore should not be construed as investment, financial, or other advice, or construed as a recommendation to buy, sell, or otherwise transact in any investment. We do not endorse any specific product that is referenced in this article. This article is not a replacement for personal financial advice and it is strongly recommended that you review your own personal financial situation and seek professional investment and/or financial advice before engaging in any investing. Reading this article does not create a professional relationship and we are not in the business of providing investment or financial advice. The information provided in this article is as accurate as possible, however errors may occasionally occur and we are not responsible for any errors. We expressly disclaim any liability or loss incurred by any person who acts on the information, ideas, or strategies discussed in this report. Executive Summary Is it possible to save for retirement, a home purchase, or college tuition while also pushing corporations to act on climate change? We think it might be. In this overview, we explore the ways Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing in mutual funds and exchange-traded funds might move the needle on corporate climate action and reduce GHG emissions. Because ESG includes “environment” as one of its pillars, it is often the starting point for retail investors hoping to use their money to have an impact on climate change. But we find that ESG funds are often not designed to have an impact on any environmental, social or governance outcomes at all. The rise of these sustainable investment funds has been driven by three types of investor motivation: values alignment, financial performance and (less frequently) impact. Additionally, we find ESG scores for specific companies to be an unreliable shorthand for climate performance. This is because ESG scores for companies rely on voluntary disclosures, often contradict each other, and aggregate climate metrics with many other metrics. This allows companies to obscure their climate record with better performance on other metrics. We find ESG, in general, to be an unreliable shorthand for climate-forward investments. There are some ESG funds that do claim to have an impact on the climate. Although investment managers use an array of terms to describe how their climate-focused funds deviate from conventional funds, we suggest it boils down to two main approaches: portfolio composition, or “what the fund holds”; and shareholder activism, or “what the fund does.” Climate funds vary in the type of information they use to build their portfolio (e.g., ESG scores, sector or industry, specific practices) and the way they use that information (e.g., screening or weighting certain companies in their portfolio). The most common strategy portfolio composition strategy used by climate funds is fossil fuel divestment. Climate funds also vary in the degree of shareholder activism they engage in. These funds can pressure companies to change behavior by introducing shareholder resolutions, voting on proxy ballots, and other informal strategies. Many climate funds combine some type of portfolio composition approach with shareholder action. But how likely is it for these two main strategies to lead to climate impacts? For that, we explore the theories of change and available empirical evidence, summarized in Table 1 below. We find that the evidence on the impact of fossil fuel divestment is mixed. Based on our current research, we see the most potential for near-term impact on climate from funds that concentrate on shareholder engagement, either on its own or in coordination with divestment strategies. As such, we recommend climate-focused retail investors pay attention to a fund’s track record of shareholder engagement, rather than just its portfolio composition strategy. We close by describing three main categories of funds that are using shareholder activism to push for climate action. We did not consider the financial viability of these funds, beyond a basic observation of the fund fees, and the examples we provide do not constitute investment advice. Smaller, newer funds which appear to have transparent, sophisticated climate investment strategies and a stated intention to leverage shareholder engagement to induce climate action but are too new to have any track record of success (e.g., Engine No. 1’s ETF, Carbon Collective, and others). These funds also claim to offer fees that are comparable to conventional funds. Older, medium-sized funds with proven track records of pushing companies to reduce GHG emissions through shareholder engagement (e.g., Green Century Funds, Trillium Asset Managers, Zevin Asset Management, and others). These types of funds often charge fees that are somewhat higher than fees charged by non-sustainable actively managed funds. Larger, often generic funds which have greater influence over proxy votes due to the size of their holdings and tend to outperform their peers in their support for climate resolution (e.g., Hartford Funds or Columbia Threadneedle). We also note that the two largest asset managers in the United States, Blackrock, and Vanguard, had some of the lowest rates of support for climate resolutions in 2020. Investing for the climate is challenging. Individual retail investor choices are necessarily an indirect path to impact but investing in funds that use their influence as shareholders to drive climate action appears to be a promising strategy. Good signs include funds actively engaging their portfolio companies on climate issues, funds introducing and voting in favor of climate-forward resolutions, and funds that have sophisticated, climate-specific, transparent criteria for inclusion. Download the full report above for more about ESG, the academic literature on its impact (or not), and our conclusions on climate impact.

An actionable guide to maximizing the impact of corporate climate action Instead of offsetting the past, we help your business decarbonize the future. Take your corporate climate action beyond net-zero Pressure is mounting for companies to develop and implement meaningful climate strategies. However, conventional approaches to carbon neutrality have limitations: direct emissions reductions remain out of grasp for some businesses, and the efficacy of many carbon offset projects is highly uncertain. ​ Giving Green encourages companies to move away from immediate net-zero goals and instead develop a meaningful business climate strategy that truly maximizes climate impact. Instead of offsetting the past, companies should focus on decarbonizing the future. For more detail, please read our white paper on corporate climate action: Download our white paper on corporate climate action We recommend that most donors and businesses give to our top climate nonprofits , but we recognize that many corporate climate strategies are multifaceted. Below, we list some specific recommendations for businesses to invest in catalytic carbon removal portfolios, purchase carbon removals, or purchase high-quality carbon offsets. For the research behind our recommendations below, see our carbon offsets & carbon removals research . ​ ​ Invest in catalytic carbon removal portfolios Frontier Frontier is a private sector-led advance market commitment (AMC) intended to support and accelerate the development and deployment of carbon removal technologies. Climate models indicate that in order to limit warming to 2°C, emissions reductions alone may not suffice; reaching net-zero in the necessary timeframe will likely require gigaton (billion ton)-scale deployment of carbon removal by midcentury. The carbon removal sector is in its early stages, both in terms of technological readiness as well as supply; available carbon removal supply is too expensive to create broad demand. Frontier’s AMC model allows companies to maximize impact by pulling forward their carbon removal demand in order to catalyze the market. ​ *Frontier has both an LLC and 501(c)3 arm. CONTRIBUTE READ OUR RESEARCH Milkywire ​ Milkywire is a platform that hosts and manages the Climate Transformation Fund, a fund for businesses that consists of a portfolio of climate projects within three areas: restoring and protecting nature, carbon removal, and decarbonization. Giving Green recommends Milkywire’s carbon removal portfolio as one of the top donation opportunities for businesses. Milkywire’s carbon removal portfolio provides a widely accessible, catalytic investment opportunity to enable future net-zero pledges by supporting the growth and development of carbon removal. VISIT MILKYWIRE READ OUR RESEARCH Our carbon removal recommendations Charm Industrial ​ Charm Industrial is a US-based company that converts agriculture residues into bio-oil, a dense carbon-rich liquid, and injects it deep underground, where it remains for thousands of years. Agriculture residues are usually left to decompose and release greenhouse gases; Charm’s bio-oil breaks this cycle, locking away the carbon where it can’t cause warming. We believe Charm Industrial’s process offers a highly permanent and certain reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Purchasing removal from Charm enables Charm to put more carbon underground and to scale up their pyrolysis technology. ​ *Charm Industrial is a for-profit business. BUY CREDITS READ OUR RESEARCH Climeworks ​ An important avenue for removing CO2 is Direct Air Carbon Capture and Sequestration (DACS). We have investigated several DACS projects and recommend purchasing carbon credits from Climeworks, a Switzerland-based company that has built a modular technology for capturing CO2 and then permanently turning it into solid material deep underground. Although these credits are expensive at over $1000 per ton of CO2, purchasing them gives unparalleled certainty of permanent CO2 removal, and supports the development of important frontier technology. ​ *Climeworks is a for-profit business. BUY CREDITS READ OUR RESEARCH Mash Makes ​ Mash Makes is an Indo-Danish carbon-negative energy company. It aims to convert waste streams (primarily residue biomass) into energy products (biofuel, hydrogen, and electricity), of which biochar is a byproduct. Mash Makes partners with farmers, NGOs, and organizations working in agriculture in India to convert crop residue that would have otherwise been burnt into biochar, with the possibility of expanding to other locations. Applying biochar to soil securely stores carbon that plants have removed from the atmosphere with medium-term permanence, preventing carbon emissions and air pollution. We have identified the Mash Makes Maharashtra Model as a high-quality, medium-term-permanence carbon removal option. ​ *Mash Makes is a for-profit business. BUY CREDITS READ OUR RESEARCH Our carbon offset recommendations BURN ​ BURN makes and distributes fuel-efficient stoves in Kenya. Their impact on fuel usage (and therefore GHG emissions) was validated by a recent randomized controlled trial (or RCT), which sets it apart from the mixed results of other cookstove providers. Additionally, BURN stove users see large reductions in expenditure on fuel, leading to more money for the family. ​ *BURN is a for-profit business. BUY OFFSETS READ OUR RESEARCH Tradewater ​ Tradewater’s mission is to find and destroy refrigerants and other gases with warming potential up to 10,000 times that of carbon dioxide. They work worldwide to find these gases, purchase them, and then destroy them. Priced at $18 per ton of CO2 removed, Tradewater offers one of the most attractive combinations of price and certainty. ​ *Tradewater is a for-profit business. BUY OFFSETS READ OUR RESEARCH

BURN // BACK This report was lightly updated in November 2022. The prior version of this report was published in October 2021. We may do a more detailed investigation of this area in the future. 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 contributing to policy advocacy (as most of these recommendations do) may not be tenable for all donors, especially businesses. Taking this into consideration, we recommend BURN specifically for businesses given its focus on carbon removal and more direct alignment with corporate net-zero ambitions.We believe BURN to be a high-impact option, but we are unsure of the extent to which its cost-effectiveness approaches that of our top recommendations. Overview of BURN stoves Theory of Change Mechanism Causality Project-level additionality Marginal additionality Permanence Co-benefits Cost-effectiveness Conclusions Overview of BURN stoves BURN Manufacturing designs, manufactures, and distributes a line of fuel-efficient cookstoves in nine countries across Africa. With two solar-powered manufacturing facilities in Kenya, BURN describes itself as “the only vertically integrated modern cookstove company in Sub-Saharan Africa”. It has distributed over two million stoves through several channels. The models it primarily uses for carbon credit purposes are the charcoal-burning Jikokoa Classic and the wood-burning Kuniokoa stoves, which are directly distributed or delivered through partnerships. [1] Giving Green recommends BURN stoves on the weight of randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence demonstrating high causality of emissions reductions. BURN stoves also have the co-benefit of reducing household spending on cooking fuel, improving health outcomes, and reducing time spent cooking. Theory of Change The following theory of change maps the link between BURN stoves and reduced GHG emissions. While BURN primarily sells its stoves in the market, its offsets fund projects that provide stoves to households at heavily reduced prices or for free. [2] BURN stoves are designed to increase the fuel efficiency of households that use biomass as their primary cooking fuel source. Offsets contribute to all facets of these projects, including production, consumer engagement, and stove distribution. Increased stove usage over time leads to reduced GHGs over time as consumers switch from their traditional cookstoves to BURN’s fuel-efficient cookstoves. Figure 1: Theory of change for reducing GHGs via purchasing BURN's offsets. We also lay out key parameters we use to model the cost-effectiveness of purchasing offsets from BURN: Assumptions (relevant stage of theory of change as described above in parentheses): Offsets increase stove production and distribution. (2) There is marginal additionality in the number of BURN stoves being used due to offset money. (3) Stoves are fuel efficient. (4) Consumer behavior is modified. (4) Money saved by consumers doesn't lead to GHG emitted elsewhere. (4) Model parameters: How many offset dollars are needed for one additional stove? (3) What is the reduction in fuel use over time? (4) How is reduction in fuel converted to GHGs averted? (4) What % of GHG reduction is maintained? (4) Mechanism The use of BURN’s cookstoves avoids emissions that would have been released by less fuel-efficient methods of cooking. Causality As mentioned in our overview of cookstove offsets , the academic literature on the link between efficient cookstoves and reduced emissions is mixed. The amount of credits a stove generates is highly variable, depending on the methodology, geography, profile of households receiving products, fuel usage (which is measured pre- and post-intervention), cooking practices, and product specs. For example, stoves in Somalia are credited more due to the less efficient standard baseline stoves, larger household size, higher rate of deforestation, and lower fuel-stacking. [3] Berkouwer and Dean (2022) conducted a rigorous RCT trial on the impact of BURN stoves and found that charcoal fuel usage, as measured by weighing of ashes and by self-reported use, declined by around 39%. [4] This is close to BURN’s claims of a 50% reduction in fuel usage. Additionally, a smaller experiment involving 154 stove users confirmed that these reductions in fuel use persisted 18 months later. We would have liked to see long-term usage data from their larger RCT sample to verify the persistence of fuel use reduction, but we view these results as encouraging. The stove model studied in this RCT was the Jikokoa Classic, which is still primarily used for most credit-producing projects alongside the Kuniokoa model. [5] Target markets remain similar to the context used within the study. [6] Overall, we view the evidence on the causality of BURN stoves in reducing GHG emissions to be quite strong. However, our assessment of the exact greenhouse gas reduction is less certain now that BURN has expanded to different geographies and stove types. Project-level additionality Project-level additionality seeks to answer the following question: would BURN exist and sell stoves in the absence of offsets? The majority of BURN’s revenues are from stove sales. Offsets are just a small part of its income, estimated at roughly 2-3% of total revenues. Representatives from BURN claim that offsets are an unreliable source of income, and therefore they cannot rely on income from offsets to fund their core business. However, offset money is generally tied to specific projects that distribute stoves among populations that normally would not have access to them. Carbon credit revenue allows Jikokoa and Kuniokoa stoves to be sold at a subsidized, more affordable price; we believe these projects would likely not exist without donor money. Overall, we assess that BURN offsets have a medium level of project-level additionality, as it’s difficult to verify whether offset money is directly going to projects that distribute stoves for free or reduced prices. However, from 2022, BURN has lowered prices for all stoves in all markets, meaning that every stove sold is now subsidized by carbon offsetting. BURN claims that as a consequence, the vast majority of BURN's distribution would now not be feasible without the sale of credits . Marginal additionality To achieve marginal additionality, each offset purchased must lead directly to additional emission reductions. For BURN, there is certainly potential for each additional offset sold to lead to more stoves being sold or used. While offsets are generated from previous projects, showing a market for offsets allows BURN to continue developing and marketing new projects with subsidized stoves. However, money is fungible. BURN could book money from offset sales as profits or raise salaries. It could also invest in marketing strategies that do not work. BURN, however, is a social enterprise with multiple impact investors on its board. BURN’s mission is “saving lives and forests.” It also claims that all of its offset projects are “break-even” and do not contribute to other parts of BURN’s business. While we cannot verify its claim of using offset revenues to increase stove distribution, we find the claim consistent with BURN’s expansion strategy and believe that the additional income earned will help put more stoves in the hands of families. Overall, it is not possible to verify with certainty that an additional offset purchased leads directly to the purchase of additional stoves and, therefore, to the reduction of GHGs in the atmosphere. However, BURN is a social enterprise, and we believe that it is likely that with more revenue, it will increase stove distribution. Permanence Fuel use reduction from clean cookstoves represents permanent decreases in emissions. Co-benefits Beyond reducing GHG emissions, Berkouwer and Dean (2022) also found clear economic benefits for households using BURN stoves. Berkouwer and Dean (2022) estimate that for the study population, purchasing a BURN stove resulted in fuel savings of $119/year, roughly equivalent to one month of income. They conclude that relative to a $40 unit price, the internal rate of return for one household is 295% per year, and “larger than most relevant alternative investments likely available to households.” BURN stoves can make a real difference in a family’s spending power. In addition, BURN stoves reduce the time spent cooking – a burden predominantly borne by women. Berkouwer and Dean (2022) find an average reduction of 54 minutes per day, for households using the BURN stoves. Using improved cookstoves also improves health, as better indoor air quality could decrease the incidence and severity of respiratory diseases. [7] Berkouwer and Dean (2022) find that BURN stove users self-report better respiratory health than those who did not use BURN stoves. BURN research finds that the Jikokoa reduces indoor air pollution (PM2.5 and CO) by 65%, and that the Kuniokoa reduces smoke by 82%. Cost-effectiveness Giving Green conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to estimate the cost per ton of CO2 removed from using BURN’s fuel-efficient cookstoves. Our goal is to validate our recommendation of BURN as a highly effective agent in reducing GHG emissions. The data we use comes primarily from project-level data from BURN alongside impact estimates from Berkouwer and Dean (2022). View our model here . The RCT conducted by Berkouwer and Dean (2022) concluded that study households annually spent 39% less on charcoal, which translated to a reduction of 331 kg in charcoal per household per year, given local charcoal prices at the time of the study. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2017) estimates that kg of charcoal emits 7.2–9.0 kg of CO2e from the production process alone; combustion adds 2.36 kg of CO2e. [8] Taking the midpoint of the former range, we estimate that each stove avoids 3.46 metric tons of CO2e per household annually. BURN lifetime analyses based on testing data and field data suggest that the lifetime of stoves subsidized by carbon credits may be around 5-7 years. [9] BURN told us that field survey data have an approximate 6% annual attrition rate (i.e., BURN is no longer able to reach around 25% of initially-surveyed cookstove owners by the fifth year of surveys). [10] If unreachable households are more likely to no longer use BURN stoves, relative to households that BURN is able to reach for surveys in subsequent years, it’s possible that we have overestimated the cookstove lifetime. As a rough adjustment for this, we use BURN’s lower-bound estimate of a five-year stove lifetime. Adding a 3% future carbon discount, our final estimate of GHGs avoided per household is 17.31 tCO2e over the lifetime of the stove. To then obtain the offset dollars required per tCO2e avoided, we incorporate BURN’s production-to-delivery cost of $76.28 USD, [11] which is its estimate for certain offset-funded projects. Dividing this quantity by 17.31 tCO2e, we estimate that $4.81 in offsets avoids 1 ton of CO2e. This number is less than the price at which BURN sells an offset for a ton of CO2 on its website—which varies over time but is $30/ton as of November 2022—and suggests that offsets from BURN are highly cost-effective. There are multiple reasons why our final estimate is not equal to the costs stated on BURN’s website. First, despite the stove’s estimated lifetime of 5-7 years, the crediting period for BURN is shorter because not all stoves will last this long. As a result, it does not make financial sense to conduct the validation exercises needed to issue credits once a non-negligible proportion of stoves have failed. Next, there may be differences in which parts of the charcoal life cycle are accounted for in the estimation of GHG averted — combustion, or combustion plus production. According to BURN, it was conservative in its submissions to offset certifiers, and once these parameters have been submitted to a crediting body, they are difficult to change. It is important to realize that supply and demand determine the price of offsets on the market rather than the program cost. BURN sells its carbon credits to different buyers at different prices, providing lower prices to corporate purchasers who buy in bulk. As the sale of one credit or 1,000 credits requires the same amount of administration, the recently increased prices on its website ensure the total cost of offset projects is covered, reflecting that most website sales are for one credit only. However, in this case, the marketed price of the credit is not meaningful: what matters is the total amount of money spent. Buyers who spend $100 on low-priced credits contribute the same amount to a project as those who spend $100 on high-priced credits. As a result, our calculations show a discrepancy between BURN’s sale price and the actual cost per CO2e averted, meaning that per Giving Green’s analysis, each offset sold by BURN avoids more than 1 ton of CO2e. Conclusions We believe that BURN stoves are strongly linked to reduced GHG emissions and improve the well-being of their owners. As with almost all offsets, we do not think offset purchases viably translate to a specific amount of CO2 removed. However, we believe that purchasing offsets enables BURN to distribute more stoves and directionally leads to fewer emissions. You can purchase offsets directly from BURN off their website through a corporate or individual option. We thank Peter Scott, CEO/Founder, Chris McKinney, Chief Commerce Officer, Andrew Weiner, Strategic Associate, and Molly Brown, Strategic Associate to Carbon at BURN Manufacturing for a series of conversations that informed this document. Endnotes [1] “The vast majority of the crediting is using flagship products, the Jikokoa Classic and the Kuniokoa.” “Distribution itself is done through a mix of direct and via partnerships.” BURN email correspondence, 2022-10-04 [2] “Carbon revenue is used to subsidize the cost of our stoves to a price that is affordable for the majority of families. We are targeting prices of $15-25 for Jikokoas and $0-10 for Kuniokoas.” BURN email correspondence, 2022-10-04 [3] “In Somalia for instance, we credit more per stove due to the less efficient baseline stoves, larger household size, higher rate of deforestation, and lower fuel-stacking.” BURN email correspondence, 2022-10-04 [4] https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20210766 [5] “The vast majority of the crediting is using flagship products, the Jikokoa Classic and the Kuniokoa.” BURN email correspondence, 2022-10-04 [6] " Yes, in general our target markets remain the same across geographies” BURN email correspondence, 2022-10-04 [7] “The burning of such fuels, particularly in poor households, results in air pollution that leads to respiratory diseases which can result in premature death.” Ritchie and Roser, 2022. [8] Production: https://www.fao.org/3/i6934e/i6934e.pdf ; combustion: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0961953402000089?via%3Dihub [9] BURN correspondence, 2022-11-15 [10] BURN correspondence, 2022-11-15 [11] In 2021 we used $50.85, which reflected the average cost in urban Kenya. BURN has begun expanding its operations to other countries and contexts and has noted that while it does not yet have an updated estimate for average cost, distribution in rural areas is significantly more expensive. To account for this, we have increased the cost by 50%, but we will revise this number when BURN generates an updated estimate.

Grid Renewable Energy // BACK This report was last updated in November 2020. It may no longer be accurate, both with respect to the evidence it presents and our assessment of the evidence. We may revise this report in the future, depending on our research capacity and research priorities. Questions and comments are welcome. Summary Adding renewable energy capacity to the electricity grid is a critical part of the energy transition and almost certainly contributes to reduced greenhouse gas emissions. However, it is very difficult to prove the additionality of renewable energy offsets, since many projects would be built regardless of their ability to sell carbon credits. Since renewable energy projects are frequently large and complex, project developers can’t rely on the uncertain voluntary offset market to justify new projects. Projects likely to be additional are ones in locations where renewable energy is unprofitable and not mandatory, where offsets provide a large proportion of the funding, and where the developer is continuing to develop new projects. Giving Green has done an initial assessment of many renewable energy offsets sold directly to consumers, and we have not found any that meet our criteria. Therefore, we do not recommend any renewable energy offsets at this time. However, we are continuing to assess the market for renewable energy offsets that we can recommend, as we believe that some grid renewable energy offsets are likely additional. Grid renewable energy as a carbon offset Decarbonizing the power grid is a key part of the energy transition, so electricity production is a natural place donors look to support. Investing directly into building new plants is unattainable for most climate-conscious consumers, but instead, they can support these projects through purchasing offsets. Offsets for the renewable energy field are a bit more complex than other types of offsets, as there are many different types of credit available. There are at least 5 major players in the field and each NGO has its own name/acronym to refer to offset credit [1]. To make matters even more confusing, some credits do not actually claim to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs). In this report, we try our best to demystify this complex field. We will focus on the terminology used by Gold Standard for this review since they are one of the more respected certifiers in the field. There are two types of offset instruments for renewable energy: Renewable Energy Credits (REC) and Verified Emission Reductions (VER). “[RECs] are tradable, non-tangible energy commodities that represent proof that 1 megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity was generated from an eligible renewable energy resource ( renewable electricity ) and was fed into the shared system of power lines which transport energy” [2]. By purchasing RECs, consumers can claim to contribute a “direct and quantifiable impact on increasing the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix” [3]. They are sold on renewable energy markets. RECs do not require demonstration of additionality, and therefore are not meant to equate to a reduction in emissions. Verified Emission Reductions (VER), in contrast, go through a more robust verification process that seeks to verify additionality, and therefore guarantee reduction in GHG emissions. Since the focus of our review is to find instruments that cause reduction in emissions, we will be focusing on VERs. Theoretically, this market is a win-win-win situation: creators of renewable energy projects can fundraise money for their investments, consumers of VERs get to claim reduction in emissions, and active steps are taken towards reduction in GHG emissions. But do investments into VERs actually cause reduction of GHGs? Let’s take a closer look at the certification process and how complex it can become. Causality Adding renewable energy to the grid will reduce GHGs if it is replacing generation (either current or planned) that would have taken place using fossil fuels. This is likely true in most circumstances, since fossil energy is the most common source of grid generation. However, this might vary based on the circumstance. For instance, if renewable energy is used to replace nuclear energy (which may happen in countries that are phasing out nuclear power), then the renewable energy may not actually have an effect on GHGs. Overall, it is important to know the dynamics of the specific electricity market to understand causality of renewable grid energy projects. Project-level additionality A grid electricity project satisfies project-level additionality if it only would have been developed due to the ability to sell VERs. Depending on the specifics of the local power market, this assumption may or may not hold for a number of reasons. First, renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar are becoming comparable in cost to fossil fuel generation of power without the sales of VERs [4], making investments into renewable energy a potentially attractive option in the absence of carbon offset markets. In places where they are not profitable on their own, they are frequently supported by government subsidies that attract project developers. So VERs may not be a strong factor in a project developer’s decision to invest or not invest into renewable energy (Broekhoff et al. 2019). This may not hold in all places: region-specific assessments for energy generation profitability may improve one’s ability to determine additionality more accurately. For example, Cames et al. 2016 highlight that additionality is unlikely to hold in India due to high profitability of on-shore wind generation. Second, the problem lies in the market itself. Once projects receive certified VERs, they need to sell them in order to realize any value. Project developers who sell their VERs on voluntary markets cannot be sure that anyone will buy them. Also, prices are driven by market forces, so project developers will be unsure about future revenues from offsets even if they are purchased. This creates uncertainty in the revenue stream for investors. Anticipating high unpredictability of fundraising on the voluntary market makes potential project developers heavily discount the outcomes from the market, and hedge against the volatility by relying on different sources of funding. One potential solution to this is to secure the purchase of the VER prior to implementation through emission reduction purchase agreements, or ERPAs (Broekhoff et al. 2019). Offsets purchased as part of ERPAs, therefore, have a higher chance of being additional, but these are generally not purchasable in small quantities by individuals. Timing is a critical issue. VERs are only issued by certifying agencies after a plant is up and running. Therefore, in a very literal sense buying VERs that are not part of an ERPA cannot possibly cause a project to be executed. It arguably makes sense to take a wider view of causality: by creating demand for VERs through the purchase of an offset, you can spur future projects that rely on offset sales to be profitable. If projects are being developed due to the belief that the project developers will be able to sell VERs in the future, they need to see active demand in the VER market. Therefore, by buying VERs for a past project, you may cause future projects to be developed. There is a much more direct link if the organization selling the VERs is continuing to develop more renewable energy projects, and can use the income from offsets to fuel these new investments. Another problem is that the voluntary markets cover only a small fraction of total costs, which further demonstrates that VERs may not alter the decisions of investors (Gillenwater 2008). In the case of the Belen plant, generated VER revenue per year is projected to be 584,010 euros per year, or about 10% of yearly revenue from electricity sales. While this is not a trivial amount, it is unclear if this was really enough to swing the initial investment decision. Marginal additionality Marginal additionality is achieved if each offset/VER sale can lead to additional GHG removal. Renewable energy generation projects are large, capital-intensive projects. They tend to have high up-front costs, and then relatively low operational costs that should be easily covered by electricity sales. Therefore, VER income is generally not necessary to keep projects running once they are already built. Also, in most cases, a developer is managing just one project. This means that if they receive VER income above their capital and operations cost for the project, it will likely go towards profits as opposed to developing additional renewable energy projects. This means that at some point, VERs will not have any effect on emissions. Overall, we believe the marginal additionality for renewable electricity plants is likely to be low, even if project-level is satisfied. Permanence When polluting electricity is replaced by clean energy, this permanently avoids emissions. Therefore, there is no concern about permanence in renewable energy projects. Co-benefits Fossil energy plants can cause air and water pollution, which has detrimental effects on human health and natural ecosystems. If renewable energy plants cause fossil fuel plants to go offline (or not be built), then it can achieve these co-benefits. However, these can be difficult to measure because it’s difficult to know the exact health and environmental counterfactual. Overall, we believe that renewable energy plants likely do have some co-benefits, though they are difficult to quantify. Assessment of grid renewable energy projects In summary, while we acknowledge that adding renewable energy to the grid is a key part of the energy transition, we believe that it is very difficult to verify the additionality of renewable energy offsets. Therefore, it is difficult to find reliable offsets. Offsets are more likely to be additional for projects with the following characteristics: They are in a context wherein increase in renewable energy is not required by mandates. They are in a context where renewable energy projects are unlikely to be profitable, even after taking into account government subsidies Offset revenue makes up a large proportion of a project’s revenue. The project developer is continuing to develop more renewable energy projects. Giving Green has done an initial assessment of many renewable energy offsets sold directly to consumers, and have not found any projects in which we are confident that they meet the above criteria. Therefore, we do not recommend any renewable energy offsets at this time. However, we are continuing to assess the market for renewable energy offsets that we can recommend, as we believe that some offsets are likely additional. [1] Table 1 in http://www.offsetguide.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/11.15.19.pdf [2] https://www.goldstandard.org/articles/gold-standard-renewable-energy-labels [3] https://www.goldstandard.org/impact-quantification/renewable-energy-markets [4] US energy information administration compares costs electricity generation, concluding that, on average pre-tax costs of operating/building a wind plant are comparable with non-green technologies ( link ). References Gillenwater, Michael. "Redefining RECs—part 1: untangling attributes and offsets." Energy Policy 36, no. 6 (2008): 2109-2119. Gillenwater, Michael. "Redefining RECs—Part 2: Untangling certificates and emission markets." Energy Policy 36, no. 6 (2008): 2120-2129. Gillenwater, Michael. "Probabilistic decision model of wind power investment and influence of green power market." Energy Policy 63 (2013): 1111-1125. Broekhoff, Derik Gillenwater, Michael Colbert-Sangree, Tani Cage, Patrick “Securing Climate Benefit: A Guide to Using Carbon Offsets”, November 2019, http://www.offsetguide.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/11.15.19.pdf Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2018 https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/archive/aeo18/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf Cames, Martin, Ralph O. Harthan, Jürg Füssler, Michael Lazarus, Carrie M. Lee, Peter Erickson, and Randall Spalding-Fecher. "How additional is the clean development mechanism." Analysis of the application of current tools and proposed alternatives (2016). https://ec.europa.eu/clima/system/files/2017-04/clean_dev_mechanism_en.pdf

Frontier // BACK Frontier Recommendation This report was last updated in October 2022. Giving Green believes that donating to our top recommended nonprofits is likely to be the most impactful giving strategy for supporting climate action. However, we recognize that contributing to policy advocacy (as most of these nonprofits do) may not be tenable for all donors, especially businesses. Taking this into consideration, we recommend Frontier specifically for businesses given its focus on carbon removal and more direct alignment with corporate net-zero ambitions. We believe Frontier to be a high-impact option, but we are unsure of the extent to which its cost-effectiveness approaches that of our top nonprofits. Table of Contents 1 Summary 2 Overview of Frontier 3 Theory of Change 4 Additionality 5 Co-Benefits 6 Cost-Effectiveness 7 Room for more funding 8 Conclusion 9 How to contribute to Frontier 1 Summary Giving Green recommends Frontier as one of the top donation opportunities for businesses. F rontier is a private sector-led advance market commitment (AMC) intended to support and accelerate the development and deployment of carbon removal technologies. Climate models indicate that in order to limit warming to 2°C, emissions reductions alone may not suffice; reaching net-zero in the necessary timeframe will likely require gigaton (billion ton)-scale deployment of carbon removal by midcentury. The carbon removal sector is in its early stages, both in terms of technological readiness as well as supply; available carbon removal supply is too expensive to create broad demand. Frontier’s AMC model allows companies to maximize impact by pulling forward their carbon removal demand in order to catalyze the market. 2 Overview of Frontier F rontier [1] is an advance market commitment (AMC), intended to support and accelerate the development and deployment of carbon removal technologies. Stripe led the creation of Frontier in collaboration with the founding members: Alphabet, Shopify, Meta, and McKinsey & Company. Frontier’s initial commitment to invest $925 million toward carbon removal by 2030 is funded by its founding members and businesses using Stripe Climate. The fund is currently open to more buyers in an effort to build demand and encourage supply. Given that the carbon removal sector is both nascent and varied, initial allocations of the fund take two forms: (i) Prepurchases target early-stage sellers, like startups, and provide an on-ramp into the market through either one-time, $500,000 purchases of carbon removal tons to be delivered in the future or research and development (R&D) grants. This track is widely accessible and flexible; contributions of any size can be made on a rolling basis and do not necessitate long-term contracts. (ii) Offtakes target commercial-stage suppliers, suppliers that use more developed technologies and are ready to remove tons on a commercial scale, via longer-term, pay-on-delivery agreements.This track is a great fit for organizations that are looking to commit to carbon removal on a multi-year basis and can contribute ~$1M/year through 2030. Figure 1 shows how Frontier connects buyers and suppliers of carbon removal. Figure 1: How Frontier works . Frontier plans to phase out prepurchases over time, eventually concentrating only on offtakes (see Figure 2 ). Figure 2: Illustration of projected future of Frontier's allocation between pre-purchases vs offtakes . Frontier’s first round of funding was recently announced, funneling $2.4 million to six early-stage companies in the form of prepurchases. [2] Carbon removal pathways supported in this first round of funding include direct air capture (DAC), mineralization, enhanced weathering, and synthetic biology. Frontier is the first customer for all six companies. The selection process for carbon removal sellers consists of both science and governance reviews, and the panel of technical reviewers represents a broad range of expertise. During the science review, projects must satisfy stringent criteria, including carbon storage durability of more than 1000 years, minimization of arable land use, a cost trajectory leading to less than $100 per ton, [3] scalability to more than half a gigaton of removal per year, net-negativity, additionality, and verifiability. [4] This criterion narrows eligibility to exclude less durable pathways like biochar or forestry . The governance review assesses criteria such as public engagement, environmental justice, and legal compliance, as well as issues including moral hazard, involvement of the oil and gas industry, environmental health impacts, and workforce development. [5] Frontier shares resources such as science and governance review forms, project applications, and purchase agreements through its GitHub . It does not share the completed reviews. 3 Theory of Change Carbon Removal Climate models indicate that in order to limit warming to 2°C, emissions reductions alone may not suffice; reaching net-zero in the necessary timeframe will likely require gigaton-scale deployment of carbon removal by midcentury. [6] Carbon removal will be especially useful in balancing emissions from hard-to-abate sectors like aviation, shipping, and industry. [7] In addition, it is our impression that removing more carbon than we emit via net-negative goals may be an important strategy to curb future climate damage. This is a view shared by some members of the private sector, [8] government, [9] and scientific community, [10] and would only be made possible through the development and deployment of carbon removal. Carbon removal as a sector is quite varied both in terms of the types of pathways as well as the technological readiness of each pathway. In addition, not much carbon removal is available, [11] and that which is available is too expensive to create broad demand. In fact, we have only reached about 0.0062% of a projected 10 gigaton by 2050 deployment goal, and only ~4.3% of the carbon removal purchases ever made have been delivered. [12] Much of the carbon removal sector remains in the R&D phase, and projects that have higher technological maturity are still navigating economic viability and the logistics for deployment at scale. In short, the current market is young, small, [13] and relatively uncertain; it does not yet reflect the size or certain longevity required to ensure gigaton-scale removal – a benchmark for what is needed for substantial climate change mitigation. Commercialization trajectory The first AMC, launched in 2009, was used in the development and distribution of the pneumococcal vaccine (PCV). It has been credited with substantially accelerating availability and, consequently, saving lives. [14] Subsequently, different models of AMCs have been proposed and implemented in various contexts. One salient feature of AMCs is that they appear preferable when “there is a diversity of products with different characteristics that might be appropriate to support and it is unclear which might be superior.” [15] This is especially relevant given the complexity of the carbon removal portfolio. Based on factors such as urgency, efficacy, and relevance, we see Frontier’s AMC model as potentially playing a valuable role in the growth of a robust and durable carbon removal market. The innovation trajectory of renewable energy can serve as a helpful analog to carbon removal development and deployment. The success of solar PV, in particular, was due to a combination of important interventions. These interventions included continued R&D, procurement, and the creation of certainty for future markets [16] – all three of which are present in the Frontier theory of change. Monitoring, reporting, and verification In addition, a significant challenge for carbon removal is the lack of standards for monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV). [17] To this end, Frontier has collaborated with CarbonPlan to create a framework for quantifying and mapping uncertainties in the context of carbon removal pathways represented in Frontier’s portfolio. Not only will this allow for better facilitation between buyers and sellers within the context of Frontier, but it will also serve as a model for the larger carbon removal market. Our take on Frontier’s theory of change Figure 3 represents our take on Frontier's theory of change: Figure 3: Frontier Theory of Change We have high certainty that Frontier will have a significant impact in supporting carbon removal R&D, increasing the amount of deployed carbon removal, enabling more technologies and sellers to enter the market, and providing longer-term certainty about the carbon removal market. This is because it gives directly to R&D projects, procures tons of removed carbon directly, enters into long-term purchase agreements with carbon removal sellers, and proactively supports the development of MRV frameworks. We have medium certainty that the projects supported by Frontier will continue to durably remove carbon in the future. Since Frontier supports early-stage companies through either R&D funding or low-volume purchase agreements, there is inherent risk in its strategy. [18] Not only is there uncertainty as to whether the companies will succeed as business entities, but there is also uncertainty as to whether certain technologies will work and effectively scale. Given the complexity of parameters that will determine the trajectory of carbon removal at large, we are uncertain as to when and if the carbon removal market will develop to the size and scale required to meet global climate goals. Consequently, we have low certainty regarding the magnitude of Frontier’s influence on the market’s evolution. 4 Additionality There are multiple layers of additionality: In terms of specific carbon removal projects, we have high confidence that projects chosen by Frontier remove carbon that would not otherwise have been removed, as this is one of the main criteria assessed in the selection process. [19] To ensure additionality in the context of a given carbon removal pathway, Frontier includes the question, “If this project is within a removal pathway that we have purchased from previously, what compelling, differentiated innovation does this project bring?” in its project evaluation process. [20] Regarding the carbon removal sector in general, Frontier constitutes one of the largest private investment commitments in carbon removal. According to a platform continuously monitoring the carbon removal sector , as of August 30, 2022, around $172 million has been spent on carbon removal; [21] Frontier’s first funding wave is around sixfold this amount. Given how substantial this investment is, we believe that the timely development and deployment of carbon removal technology would be less tractable in the absence of Frontier. Although Frontier plays an important role in the carbon removal ecosystem, there are other efforts to aggregate private sector investment for carbon removal. One example is First Movers Coalition , a global effort to unite companies to advance decarbonization of the industrial sector. Companies may choose to participate in various sectors, including aluminum, aviation, carbon removal (launched in May 2022), shipping, steel, and trucking. Companies participating in carbon removal must pledge to either contract for at least 50,000 tons of durable, scalable carbon removal or commit at least $25 million to carbon removal by 2030. [22] A second example is South Pole , an initiative to help companies plan and implement emissions reduction projects and strategies. One of the options for financing climate action is carbon removal through its Next Generation Carbon Removal Purchase Facility. This facility, developed in collaboration with Mitsubishi, aims to direct $300-800 million toward carbon removal by 2030. [23] Companies can currently make “forward commitments” to purchase carbon removal through this facility. While we think that both of the above examples may have the potential to generate significant impact, from the information we have gathered, the eligibility criteria seem too narrow to include most businesses. We find Frontier to be more widely accessible, especially given that any size contribution can be made toward the prepurchase track. In addition, we do not see these efforts as duplicative or as negatively impacting additionality; the combination of these still constitutes only a small portion of what is needed to sustain a gigaton-scale carbon removal market. [24] 5 Co-Benefits We acknowledge that co-benefits will vary across the different carbon removal projects selected by Frontier. However, we note that Frontier’s review process includes a governance review. The governance review includes considerations such as environmental justice, public engagement, and safety, legal, and regulatory compliance. [25] 6 Cost-Effectiveness We did not find it useful to develop a quantitative model for cost-effectiveness because we are highly uncertain regarding assumptions and estimates for parameters that we deem central to Frontier’s AMC model. In particular, given that we are providing this recommendation in the specific context of a business looking to make a catalytic investment toward carbon removal, we believe that Frontier is highly likely to be cost-effective as it provides the prospect of amplifying a contribution to carbon removal through both its acceleration and deployment potential; we find this to be a notable value-add considering that both timing and scale are critical for the deployment of carbon removal technologies. We devote the remainder of this section to expanding on this. Historically, the cost-effectiveness of AMCs has been difficult to determine. In the aforementioned case of the pneumococcal vaccine (PCV), while the vaccine itself was deemed cost-effective, the cost-effectiveness of the AMC is unclear given a lack of counterfactual. [26] However, retroactive comparison to other vaccines, such as those for the rotavirus, suggests that significant acceleration of distribution might be attributable to the AMC; see Figure 4: Figure 4: Comparison of country coverage of PCV and rotavirus vaccine, from Kremer et al. 2020 . One of the major barriers to scaling durable carbon removal is cost; accelerated deployment is expected to result in a more rapid price decrease and, thus, a bigger and stronger market sooner. [27] Figure 5: Solar PV vs DAC learning ranges, from Lackner et al. 2021 . In a paper using the learning rates of solar photovoltaic (PV) to project a potential learning rate for modular direct air capture (DAC), a specific carbon removal technology, it was determined that “if DAC follows a path similar to that of comparable, successful technologies, a capital investment of several hundred million dollars could buy down the cost of DAC.” [28] In the context of this paper, this amount corresponds to about 1.5 megatons (million tons) of DAC deployment. As demonstrated by the above figure, even if the cost of DAC seems high, it is still closer to the relative price target than solar PV was early in its innovation cycle. More conservative analyses that use slower learning rates – rates closer to what have been observed empirically for DAC – estimate that deployment of 9 megatons of DAC by 2030 is needed to enable substantial learning by doing and cost reduction. [29] Given that Frontier intends to invest toward longer-term impact over choosing the lowest cost solutions available, it is unclear exactly how many tons the fund will directly purchase. However, even under the worst-case scenario of prices stagnating at the current average across the current Frontier portfolio, ~$1200, the first round of funding could result in about 770,000 tons of carbon removal. We have high confidence that through the addition of subsequent funding rounds and the highly probable decrease in price across carbon removal pathways, Frontier will catalyze enough investment to facilitate deployment capacity on the order of millions of tons. Although this investment will be spread across carbon removal pathways, we project the dynamics across the portfolio to be similar to that of DAC. (For reference, here is an example of our cost-effectiveness analysis model in the context of DAC.) We think that this magnitude of deployment is likely to contribute substantially to the growth of the carbon removal market in the next decade. 7 Room for more funding To the best of our knowledge, Frontier, through its first funding wave, has committed to one of the largest purchases into the carbon removal market to date. However, it remains orders of magnitude away from the trillions of dollars [30] needed to achieve and sustain gigaton-scale deployment by midcentury. Frontier is currently accepting contributions for its second wave of funding, demonstrating an intention and ability to absorb more money effectively. The impact of additional funds will manifest more immediately (~3 years) through prepurchases, as well as through the signaling effect of additional buyers entering the space. [31] In the longer term (~4-8 years), the impact will largely be made through offtake agreements. Hence, we expect Frontier to continue to be an effective pathway toward building a carbon removal market. 8 Key uncertainties/open questions AMCs are temporary strategies; Frontier’s plans for phasing out have not yet been shared. Given that some of the barriers to scaling carbon removal may require more than private sector intervention, [32] it is unclear whether Frontier, under current market and policy conditions, will be able to elicit a substantial supply-side response. It is unclear whether or not the carbon removal companies supported by Frontier, especially those receiving contributions through prepurchases, will successfully scale or survive in the longer term. We are uncertain that the investment from Frontier will result in a sufficient reduction in cost and scaling of deployment to substantially contribute to climate change mitigation. 9 Conclusion Setting net-zero and, eventually, net-negative goals are important, but we do not believe that they are achievable in the necessary timeline given the current state of technology, infrastructure, systems, and policies in place today. Therefore, we think that supporting the change and advancement to make these goals possible is among the most effective ways to contribute directly to robust climate action and, when possible, should be favored over ton-ton accounting; catalytic investment in emerging yet valuable technologies like carbon removal is one such way to contribute. Frontier’s AMC model provides an accessible, anticipatory investment toward enabling future net-zero pledges by supporting the growth and development of a carbon removal market. How to contribute to Frontier If your business can commit at least $500,000 per year from 2023-2030, consider becoming a Frontier member. This includes offtake agreements and a variety of other benefits depending on your contribution amount. The $500,000/year cutoff is not a sharp cutoff, but indicative of the amount that Frontier expects from its members. Companies that want to purchase offtakes at lower amounts should contact Frontier to understand the possibilities. For more details, see Frontier’s information for potential buyers . If your business has less than $500,000 per year to commit to carbon removal, consider contributing to Frontier through the prepurchase track. Contributions to this track can be made directly through the Frontier website . Note: Contributions to Frontier can be made through the 501(c)(3) arm by contacting Hannah Bebbington, hannah [at] frontierclimate [dot] com. We thank Hannah Bebbington, Strategy Lead at Stripe Climate + Frontier, for a series of conversations that informed this document. Endnotes [1] Frontier began as a public benefit LLC owned by Stripe but has recently added a 501(c)(3) arm. [2] For more information, see “Frontier facilitates first carbon removal purchases.” https://frontierclimate.com/writing/spring-2022-purchases . June 29, 2022 [3] “It’s the point at which carbon removal services become affordable at the scale needed to make it a meaningful tool to reach net zero emissions.” https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/carbon-removal-cost-per-ton [4] CDR Application: Science Review Criteria 1-6, 8.. https://github.com/frontierclimate/carbon-removal-source-materials/blob/main/TEMPLATE%20Expert%20Review%20Forms/2022/Science%20Review%20Form.pdf [5] CDR Application: Governance Review Criteria 7, Questions 1-4 and Quantitative Assessment Question 5. https://github.com/frontierclimate/carbon-removal-source-materials/blob/main/TEMPLATE%20Expert%20Review%20Forms/2022/Governance%20Review%20Form.pdf [6] “All available studies require at least some kind of carbon dioxide removal to reach net zero; that is, there are no studies where absolute zero GHG or even CO2 emissions are reached by deep emissions reductions alone.” IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, Chapter 3 [7] “These difficult-to-decarbonize energy services include aviation…production of carbon-intensive structural materials such as steel and cement…To the extent that carbon remains involved in these services in the future, net-zero emissions will also entail active management of carbon.” Davis et al. 2018. [8] “While the world will need to reach net zero, those of us who can afford to move faster and go further should do so.“ https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16/microsoft-will-be-carbon-negative-by-2030/ [9] “I believe that it’s important for all the developed countries to talk about, not net zero, but about removing more carbon from the atmosphere than they are adding — net negative is what they need to talk about.” Minister Singh, IEA-COP26 Net Zero Summit [10] “The world will be net negative once removal exceeds emissions. If it takes us more than a decade or two to lower the level of CO2, we definitely will have overshot our targets and will need to maintain net negative emissions for decades into the future. Therefore, time is of the essence.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/feliciajackson/2021/08/30/net-zero-is-no-longer-enough--its-time-for-net-negative-policy-coherence-and-robust-esg/?sh=73c495c06a34 [11] “There is an extremely limited supply of reliable, permanent carbon removal available, and what exists is extremely expensive.” Stanford Social Innovation Review. Racing to Net-Zero: A Captivating but Distant Ambition (2022) [12] As of August 30, 2022, see cdr.fyi for live updates. [13] “The market for durable carbon removal does not exist. Yet. What we have is a heterogenous space consisting of hundreds of companies with ideas on how to remove carbon.“ https://roberthoglund.medium.com/the-carbon-removal-market-doesnt-exist-3e28b9ed14cc [14] “Three vaccines have been developed and more than 150 million children immunized, saving an estimated 700,000 lives.” Kremer et al 2020 [15] “there is a diversity of products with different characteristics that might be appropriate to support and it is unclear which might be superior.” Vivid Economics. Advance Market Commitments for low-carbon development: an economic assessment (2010) [16] “There is nothing inevitable about the rapid development and wide- spread adoption of low-carbon technologies. Rather, intentional policy and pur- posive investment will be needed and sustained over many years.” Nemet, G. F. (2019). How solar energy became cheap: A model for low-carbon innovation. Routledge [17] “... a more systematic approach to CDR MRV will be needed in the years ahead to track the performance of different CDR approaches and maintain high-quality standards as the market grows.” https://carbonplan.org/research/cdr-verification-explainer [18] See Table 7. Survival of private sector establishments by opening year. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/bdm/us_age_naics_00_table7.txt [19] Criteria 6, Questions 14, 15. https://github.com/frontierclimate/carbon-removal-source-materials/blob/main/TEMPLATE%20Expert%20Review%20Forms/2022/Science%20Review%20Form.pdf [20] Holistic Question 18. https://github.com/frontierclimate/carbon-removal-source-materials/blob/main/TEMPLATE%20Expert%20Review%20Forms/2022/Science%20Review%20Form.pdf [21] Note that this includes carbon removal pathways outside of Frontier’s portfolio. [22] “Members may choose to contract for at least 50,000 tons of durable and scalable net carbon dioxide removal removals to be achieved by the end of 2030, or as an alternative may choose to contract for at least $25 million of durable and scalable net carbon dioxide removal removals to be achieved by the end of 2030.” https://www.weforum.org/first-movers-coalition/sectors [23] “South Pole today announced the development of the Next Generation Carbon Removal Purchase Facility together with Mitsubishi Corporation. The facility aims to procure at least US$300-800 million worth of certified carbon removal credits by 2030.” https://www.southpole.com/news/south-pole-announces-development-of-new-facility-to-scale-up-the-next-generation-of-carbon-removals-together-with-mitsubishi-corporation [24] “Cumulative global DAC demand is estimated to be ~3 Gt, reflecting a cumulative global market value of $3 – 4T…The U.S. market for DAC projects is expected to be substantial, with ~1.9 Gt/yr capacity reached by 2050 and a domestic market through 2050 of ~$1T, calculated as value of sales of carbon credits and CO2 for utilization.” https://thirdway.imgix.net/pdfs/override/Potential-for-US-Competitiveness-in-Emerging-Clean-Technologies.pdf [25] Criteria 7, Question 1-4. https://github.com/frontierclimate/carbon-removal-source-materials/blob/main/TEMPLATE%20Expert%20Review%20Forms/2022/Governance%20Review%20Form.pdf [26] “Evidence on the cost effectiveness of PCV does not prove the cost effectiveness of the overall AMC because we lack a valid counterfactual.” Kremer et al 2020 [27] “Currently, the primary limiting factor to DAC is its high cost, which will decrease as it is deployed.” https://www.breakthroughenergy.org/us-policy-overview/carbon-removal/technological-solutions [28] Lackner, Klaus S., and Habib Azarabadi. "Buying down the cost of direct air capture." Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 60.22 (2021): 8196-8208 [29] “We estimate that at least nine million tons of DAC capacity need to be operational in 2030 to get the US on track for meeting mid-century carbon removal requirements.“ Rhodium Group. Capturing Leadership: Policies for the US To Advance Direct Air Capture Technology. (2019) [30] “The carbon-removal market will probably need to reach $1 trillion a year, Ransohoff told me, a figure that places it well outside any company’s reach.” https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/04/big-tech-investment-carbon-removal/629545/ [31] “The more we can do to stack demand through Frontier, the better it’s going to be for the ecosystem...We need to bring in those other buyers so that we can accelerate.” https://fortune.com/2022/09/19/these-tech-companies-are-accelerating-permanent-carbon-removal-to-save-the-planet/ [32] “Second, stakeholder perspectives also converged around the view that public sector support is the most important factor for scaling up long-duration CDR.” https://carbonplan.org/research/cdr-scale-barriers

Cutting short-lived climate pollutants // BACK This report was last updated in April 2022. Short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) do not last as long as carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, but they are much more potent at trapping heat. Despite its short term effects, early SLCP mitigation is essential in terms of (1) keeping global temperature change below 2°C over the next few decades and (2) buying more time for the current generation to adapt to climate change and its effects. It is especially important to direct resources toward SLCP solutions where there is no clear pathway toward success given current technology, as these emissions sources will remain for the visible future. However, SLCP mitigation is an inadequate substitute for aggressive CO2 mitigation because, unlike SLCPs, CO2 can last in the atmosphere for centuries to millennia. Therefore, SLCP and CO2 mitigation must be done in tandem. Existing technologies can significantly reduce SLCP emissions by 2030, and there are additional methods and technologies under development that could help further control concentrations of SLCPs in the atmosphere. It seems likely that, on the whole, cutting SLCPs is not neglected because major foundations have pledged hundreds of millions of dollars to reduce global methane (CH4) emissions, which is the most abundant SLCP. However, there may still be pockets of need. For example, CH4 leaks from oil and gas production will likely be well-covered, but there is not a clear pathway toward reducing CH4 emissions from livestock. Giving Green will investigate SLCPs further (with a focus on reducing livestock emissions), but we need more information on how foundations have prioritized CH4 solutions to assess neglectedness. This report is also available in PDF format: 2022-04 Cutting Short-Lived Climate Pollutants .pdf Download PDF • 7.70MB Image: Mike Benna Background Short-lived climate pollutants only persist for a short period. SLCPs are greenhouse gases (GHGs) that persist in the atmosphere for a shorter period than long-lived climate pollutants (LLCPs), such as CO2 and nitrous oxide (N2O). A brief description of the main LLCPs and SLCPs follow in the table below. Our report primarily focuses on CH4 because it is the most abundant SLCP. Table 1: Main long-lived and short-lived climate pollutants. *Values are based on a 100-year global warming potential value. Mt refers to million tonnes. For calculations, please refer to our “Short-lived climate pollutant emissions [2022]” spreadsheet. The main SLCPs are more potent than CO2. Although SLCPs are short-lived, the main SLCPs are many times more potent than CO2 at trapping heat. A common metric for measuring a GHG’s potency is its global warming potential (GWP), which measures the heat absorbed by a GHG compared to the heat absorbed by an equal mass of CO2. GWP is time-dependent, and its subscript denotes the number of years over which its potential is calculated. Table 2: Global warming potential of various greenhouse gases SLCP mitigation must be done alongside CO2 mitigation. Mitigating SLCP should not substitute efforts to drive CO2 emissions to zero. CO2 has a lifetime of up to thousands of years, so CO2 will continue to accumulate in the atmosphere if its emissions are not zeroed out. Early SLCP mitigation will have little impact on peak warming unless this effort is accompanied by ambitious reductions in CO2 emissions (Figure 1). Some have argued that reducing SLCPs will delay when we reach climate tipping points, which are thresholds that will lead to irreversible climate damage when they are exceeded. However, the exact definition of tipping points and when we would reach one remain controversial. Additionally, it seems likely that mitigating SLCPs would only delay when we reach tipping points by a few decades so long as the concentration of atmospheric CO2 continues to rise (Shoemaker et al., 2013). In short, reducing SLCPs without mitigating CO2 would prioritize the current generation (e.g., buy time for climate adaptation) over future generations. Even though delayed SLCP emissions may have less of an effect on warming than delayed CO2 emissions, it is still necessary to eventually mitigate SLCP emissions. This need for mitigation and flexible timing suggest that research and development (R&D) into mitigating hard-to-abate SLCP emissions could be a promising area to investigate. Figure 1: Idealized scenario of change in global warming when cuts to CO2 and/or SLCP are either delayed or early. Delaying CO2 mitigation would lead to CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere (Allen, 2015). Importance Reducing SLCP emissions now would substantially impact the rate of temperature change over the next few decades because SLCPs are more potent than CO2; if SLCP emissions are allowed to persist, they will continue to cause warming. Notably, the International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that CH4 alone is responsible for 30 percent of the rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution (IEA, 2022). According to the Global Methane Assessment, human-driven CH4 emissions can be reduced by 45 percent by 2030, and this reduction will help keep the world on track for keeping global warming under 1.5 ° C compared to pre-industrial times (United Nations Environment Programme and Climate and Clean Air Coalition, 2021). This report primarily focuses on CH4 emissions because it is the most abundant SLCP and is widely considered to be the second most important GHG after CO2. However, it is not the only SLCP that we are interested in. For example, our 2020 and 2021 recommendations included Tradewater, which destroys HFC refrigerants. We are less concerned about black carbon as a climate pollutant because it only lasts in the atmosphere for a matter of days. Additionally, despite black carbon’s high GWP, reducing its atmospheric concentration may not be especially effective in reducing global surface air temperatures (Takemura & Suzuki, 2019). This is likely because heating due to black carbon is quickly compensated for by rapid changes in the atmosphere, such as changes in clouds, precipitation, and relative humidity. Tractability There are existing tools for driving SLCP emissions down. Numerous existing technologies and practices can reduce SLCP emissions, as described in the table below: Table 3: Existing solutions for removing or avoiding SLCPs Methane mitigation and removal Existing technologies can reduce global methane emissions by 57 percent by 2030 (Ocko et al., 2021). Moreover, almost a quarter of these emissions can be eliminated at no net cost. Plugging CH4 leaks from pipelines and wells is low-hanging fruit. IEA argued that plans to reduce CH4 should initially focus on oil and gas leaks (IEA, 2021), which contributes to more than a quarter of methane emissions (Ritchie & Roser, 2020). Indeed, mitigating most CH4 emissions from oil and gas production by 2030 is economically feasible (Ocko et al., 2021) (Figure 2). Figure 2: Estimated global anthropogenic methane emissions in 2030 (Ocko et al., 2021). This estimate does not include behavioral change, which could increase mitigation potential. Most livestock emissions remain unsolved. Even if all CH4 emissions abatement strategies were deployed, there would still be a large residual of unabated livestock emissions in 2030 (Ocko et al., 2021). Livestock emissions will most likely continue to grow because global meat consumption will likely continue rising. The fastest growth in meat consumption will most likely happen in low- and middle-income countries experiencing rising incomes (Blaustein-Rejto & Smith, 2021). Currently, animal products are responsible for 22, 65, and 70 percent of diet-related emissions in lower-middle–, upper-middle–, and high-income countries, respectively (Behrens et al., 2017). Livestock emissions can be slashed by reducing meat consumption, decreasing ruminant emissions (e.g., cattle, sheep, and goats), and shrinking food waste and loss. Ruminant emissions can be curbed both directly and indirectly. Direct techniques include feeding ruminants additives with methane inhibitors; indirect methods include improving livestock productivity. Increasing CH4 removal from the atmosphere is challenging. Natural processes destroy 10 percent of CH4 in the atmosphere every year (Turner et al., 2019). In particular, oxidation breaks CH4 molecules’ covalent bonds, such as when CH4 reacts with chlorine atoms or hydroxyl radicals. Researchers are developing new technologies and practices that could enhance methane removal (Barber, 2022), such as the following: Spraying iron salts to draw chlorine atoms out of the ocean air, Using thermal towers to suck in air and break down methane through photocatalysis (sunlight and metal catalysts), and Trapping methane in zeolite pores and oxidizing the molecules with heat, oxygen, and metal catalysts (Jackson et al., 2019). However, removing CH4 from the atmosphere is challenging because it is incredibly dilute. Additionally, it would be immensely challenging to scale CH4 removal in a way that would compete with natural processes. According to Klaus Lackner, a pioneer in carbon removal technologies, “To substantially enhance natural processes, methane removal units would have to process the entire atmosphere in less than a decade” (Lackner, 2020). He argued that reducing CH4 emissions may be easier than removing CH4 from the atmosphere. Neglectedness There has been an international movement towards reducing CH4 emissions. Numerous countries have pledged to slash CH4 emissions by 30 percent by 2030. In 2020, more than 30 countries signed onto the Global Methane Pledge, agreeing to cut global methane emissions by at least 30 percent from 2020 levels by 2030 (Friedman, 2021). If successful, this pledge could achieve annual reductions of 145 million metric tons of CH4 (Nesbit, 2021). Using a 100-year GWP value, this is equal to about 4 billion metric tons of CO2-equivalent. The pledge includes nine of the world’s top 20 CH4 polluters but does not include the four heaviest emitters of CH4: China, India, Russia, and Brazil. The US EPA has made strides towards reducing CH4 leaks from oil and gas production. In November 2021, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a new set of CH4 rules that would require oil and gas companies to monitor and address leaks from existing and future wells (US EPA, 2021). This set of rules would cover about 75 percent of all CH4 emissions in the US. However, there may be lengthy delays before these rules are implemented as EPA gathers public comments and opponents launch lawsuits. Additionally, a future president could reverse these rules if a Republican takes the White House. The oil and gas industry has been involved in reducing CH4 emissions. The United Nations Environment Programme and the European Commission launched the International Methane Emissions Observatory to coordinate CH4 reduction efforts. The observatory will access estimated emissions inventories from both governments and industries (Nature, 2021). Funders have pledged hundreds of millions towards reducing CH4 emissions. Over 20 philanthropic organizations have pledged about $328 million to support reducing CH4 emissions (William + Flora Hewlett Foundation, 2021). Funders involved in this effort will coordinate “methane reduction solutions, providing expertise, financial resources, technical support, and best-in-class data to ensure methane reduction progress and accurate monitoring, verification, and reporting, including in the resource extraction and agriculture sectors.” It is unclear how the foundations will allocate funds towards different causes. Therefore, we cannot tell what aspects of addressing CH4 emissions will be most neglected. However, we suspect that early efforts will focus on the oil and gas industry because there appears to be a broad consensus that plugging leaks is low-hanging fruit for mitigating CH4. CH4 emissions from livestock may remain neglected. Efforts like developing animal feed that reduces ruminant emissions are in their early R&D phase. We suspect that research into livestock emissions may be relatively neglected and have room for more funding because it is a less sure bet than reducing emissions from oil and gas leaks. For example, a discussion paper released in November 2021 called for a $100 million investment into multi-year tests of animal feed that would reduce methane production (Searchinger et al., 2021). Conclusion Reducing CH4 emissions is important and tractable, but on the whole, it may not be neglected given the significant amount of philanthropic funding pouring into this space. We need further information on the philanthropic landscape for CH4 before we can accurately assess room for more funding. Currently, it seems likely that we should deprioritize investigations into plugging leaks from oil and gas pipelines and wells because that appears to be well-covered ground. However, there may be neglected areas within CH4 reduction, specifically reducing CH4 emissions from ruminants. This could include technological fixes that reduce enteric fermentation, or policy or technology that lead to less meat consumption. We find these pathways promising as areas for philanthropic investment and intend to investigate them further. We also plan on investigating other SLCPs in the future. Download the full report at the top of this page to access the full list of works cited. This report last updated April 21, 2022. Questions and comments are welcome.