Search Results

CarbonPlan // BACK Overview The Giving Green Fund plans to award a restricted grant to CarbonPlan , a US-based nonprofit that analyzes the design and efficacy of climate projects and programs, primarily those related to carbon offsets, carbon removal, and climate risks. This is one of a series of ecosystem grants supporting foundational work to unlock innovative policy approaches for durable carbon dioxide removal (CDR) demand. CarbonPlan falls within our philanthropic strategy of carbon dioxide removal . Please see Giving Green’s deep dive report on CDR for more information, including risks and potential co-benefits, recommended sub-strategies, theory of change, funding need, and key uncertainties. Last updated: October 2024 What is CarbonPlan? Founded in 2020, CarbonPlan is a US-based nonprofit that analyzes the design and efficacy of public and private projects and programs in the context of carbon offsets, CDR, and climate risks. CarbonPlan conducts research, develops policy, and builds software to help improve climate programs across the private and public sectors. What are we funding at CarbonPlan and how could it help scale demand for CDR? This grant funds CarbonPlan’s exploration of questions and contexts outside of conventional demand policies (i.e. credit-based carbon markets), which we think will motivate new and creative research design and applications. We think this could expand understanding of how, where, and to what extent CDR can be embedded across industries and applications, unlocking new opportunities to scale CDR demand to meet climate targets. Specifically, CarbonPlan will conduct research on agricultural lime, a soil additive, and its comparative CDR potential. Conventional thinking suggests that carbon credits could be used as financial subsidies for farmers to amend their practices to include additives that sequester carbon. However, the use of agricultural lime is currently incentivized through pay-for-practice policies (policies that subsidize implementation rather than performance) in the US; according to CarbonPlan, it is difficult to integrate agricultural lime into existing carbon markets because of the challenge of determining additionality. CarbonPlan is modeling CDR outcomes of agricultural lime and silicates, which are more well-established and understood in the context of carbon markets, to compare conditions under which one might outperform the other in terms of net climate benefits. In contexts where their findings show that agricultural lime has greater climate benefit, their evidence could be used to support the expansion of pay-for-practice policies for agricultural lime, thus (a) increasing demand for and deployment of this CDR practice and (b) providing a proof point for policies that do not rely on credit-based financing. CarbonPlan plans to publish results in an academic paper as well as a public-facing explainer. Why do we think CarbonPlan will use this funding well? CarbonPlan’s team has deep technical expertise and a track record of producing high-quality and influential tools , research , and commentary , as evidenced by its collaborations with Frontier and strong partnerships with CDR companies, scientists, and other ecosystem actors. Because of this, we think that it is well-positioned to conduct strategic and rigorous research to support meaningful shifts in policy and market approaches. Giving Green believes that additional climate donations are likely to be most impactful when directed to our top nonprofits. For a number of reasons , we may choose to recommend grants to other organizations for work that we believe is at least as impactful as grants to our top recommendations. We are highlighting this grant to offer transparency to donors to the Giving Green Fund as well as to provide a resource for donors who are particularly interested in this impact strategy. This is a nonpartisan analysis (study or research) and is provided for educational purposes.

We recommend the best giving opportunities in climate. How did we analyze Australian organisations? Methods Summary // BACK In this report, we detail our logic for focusing on organisations working to accelerate climate policy and emissions reduction activities in Australia, how we determined organisations to analyse in-depth, and the criteria we used to evaluate those organisations. This report was last updated in December 2021. Table of Contents Introduction How we determined which organisations to analyse in-depth Step 1: Literature review and research theory Step 2: Expert interviews Step 3: Identification of key ‘approaches’ to policy change Step 4: Use the Importance, Tractability, and Neglectedness Framework to determine priority approaches Step 5: Identification of a longlist of organisations for ‘shallow dive’ analysis Step 6: Narrow down to a shortlist of high potential organisations Step 7: ‘Deep dive’ analysis Step 8: Final recommendations Endnotes Introduction 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 (NGOs), through to small-scale local charities and community groups. Giving Green has tasked itself with identifying which of the organisations working to accelerate climate action in Australia stand to make the greatest impact with a marginal donation. To make the task feasible, it was necessary first to narrow the scope of our research focus. We settled on policy change because effective public policy has consistently proven to be a key driver of technological, human, business and industry behaviour change. In Australia, there has been a distinct lack of climate policy leadership at a federal level since the election of the Liberal-National Coalition Government in 2013. In the absence of federal government leadership, many of Australia’s state and territory governments have forged ahead, supporting a dramatic expansion of Australia’s renewable energy industry, assisting other sectors, like transport, to decarbonise, and adopting significantly more ambitious 2030 emissions reductions targets than the federal government. Nevertheless, Australia remains a major emitter, and the world’s third largest fossil fuel exporter. Improving Australia’s climate policy, both government and corporate, therefore remains a high priority, having potential to deliver globally significant emissions reductions benefits and accelerate international efforts to address the climate crisis. How we determined which organisations to analyse in-depth To create recommendations of the highest impact organisations working to improve climate policy in Australia that would make the best use of a marginal donation, we took the steps outlined below. For a more detailed explanation of our research process, see our document Giving Green Australia: 2021 Research Process . Step 1: Literature review and research theory We first surveyed the academic literature on advocacy and policy change, and qualitative research methods. We decided to rely heavily on interviews with experts in the field of climate policy, advocacy, and philanthropy (hereafter ‘experts’) to inform our research. We further decided to use Grounded Theory [1] to inform our approach to the expert interview piece of our research. Step 2: Expert interviews We conducted hour-long semi-structured interviews with 23 experts around three topics: (1) barriers to improving climate policy in Australia, (2) strategies or methods to overcome those barriers, (3) effective climate organisations that would make the best use of a marginal donation. Interviews were transcribed, coded using the qualitative data analysis software, and analysed to uncover emergent themes. Step 3: Identification of key ‘approaches’ to policy change The interviews were transcribed and coded using the qualitative data analysis software, and analysed to uncover emergent themes. We synthesised the expert opinion into five archetypal barriers to improving climate policy in Australia and five key approaches for overcoming those barriers. The major barriers identified were: the economics of fossil fuel extraction; state capture by the fossil fuel industry; the Liberal-National Coalition Government; the communications challenge; and the climate movement itself. The key approaches identified were: ‘outsider advocacy’ – applying external pressure to change government policy; ‘insider advocacy’ – lobbying and other forms of insider influence designed to change government policy from within; ‘influencing elections’ – direct involvement in election-focussed campaigns; ‘changing the story’ – identifying and scaling messages and messengers that increase pro-climate literacy, concern and behaviour change; and ‘applying and expanding the law’ – bringing court cases aimed at delivering positive climate outcomes. Step 4: Use the Importance, Tractability, and Neglectedness Framework to determine priority approaches We surveyed 52 experts, asking them to: order the barrier archetypes in terms of most to least important; rank each key approach to policy change according to the Importance, Tractability, Neglectedness (ITN) Framework; and name their top three climate organisations that could make the best use of a marginal donation. We also convened two expert focus groups to discuss the survey findings and discover if any positions or ITN rankings changed significantly through facilitated conversation. This process allowed us to identify ‘state capture by the fossil fuel industry’ and ‘the Liberal-National Coalition Government’ as the greatest barriers to accelerating climate action in Australia, and ‘insider advocacy’, ‘outsider advocacy’, and ‘changing the story’ as the highest priority approaches for delivering policy change at present. It also provided us with data on the organisations the expert community thought would make the best use of a marginal donation. Step 5: Identification of a longlist of organisations for ‘shallow dive’ analysis In parallel with Step 4, we used the expert interview data from Step 2 to develop a longlist of fifteen organisations to investigate further through ‘shallow dives’. Each shallow dive drew on desk research and further insights from the expert consultations. In particular, we assessed each organisation on the list using the following questions: What are they and what do they do? What have they accomplished or claimed to have accomplished? What potential do they have for impact? How strong is the organisation and what are their risks? What is their financial need? Based on that initial assessment, we narrowed the list down to twelve organisations that were asked to complete a short survey focussed on the assessment criteria. Several organisations also participated in hour-long semi-structured interviews. The final twelve ‘shallow dives’ can be viewed here. Step 6: Narrow down to a shortlist of high potential organisations We narrowed down our organisation longlist by first removing any organisations that did not have a major focus on the key approaches of ‘insider advocacy’, ‘outsider advocacy’, or ‘changing the story’. We narrowed the list further by carefully considering what organizations could do the most good with extra funding. In general, we believe that smaller organizations can make the most use of the marginal dollar, and therefore we excluded a number of large organizations that we believed were effective but also well-funded. The final ‘deep dive’ analysis list was identified based on the remaining organisations that received the highest number of nominations in our expert survey. Those organisations were: Beyond Zero Emissions, Farmers for Climate Action, and Original Power. Step 7: ‘Deep dive’ analysis Our ‘deep dive’ analysis of these final shortlisted organisations was undertaken based on the following elements: Operational context History of the organisation, structure, and budget Activities, tactics and achievements Room for additional funding Theory of change analysis Risks Our assessment was informed by our ‘shallow dives’, and additional in-depth interviews and consultations with each organisation, expert interviews, and desk-top research. Operational context For each deep dive, we started with an assessment of the context in which the organisation is operating. Understanding that context is key to not only determining an organisation’s past effectiveness, but also its potential future impact and theory of change. History of organisation, structure, and budget We then undertook a detailed examination of the organisation’s history, looking at how and why it was founded, how its work has evolved over time, its structure, strength, and budget. Activities, tactics and achievements Next, we reviewed each organisation’s key activities, tactics, and achievements. We asked questions like: What kinds of work does the organisation do? What tactics and strategies does it use to deliver climate policy change? What has it accomplished to date? What evidence is there to support its claims? Room for additional funding One of our key assessment criteria was the impact a marginal donation would have on the organisation. As such, we analysed how additional funds would be used by the organisation, and the relative impact that funding would have on the organisation going forward. We also assessed the organisation's capacity to absorb additional donations. Theory of change analysis The centrepiece of our ‘deep dive’ assessments were in-depth analyses of each organisation’s theory of change. We constructed a diagrammatic theory of change for each organisation to describe how they seek to deliver impact. For each theory of change, we used the framework: inputs, activities, outputs, outcome, and impact. After constructing each theory of change, we noted each of the major assumptions underpinning how the organisation’s activities and outputs lead to the desired outcomes and impact. We then undertook a critical assessment of how likely those assumptions were to hold. Finally, we categorized each assumption examined as most likely holds , may hold , or is unlikely to hold . Risks For each organisation we evaluated, our research team discussed what we thought were the greatest risks facing the organisation. We then tested those risks with the organisations to better understand whether they had identified those risks and how they plan to manage them. We also looked at broader risks to the organisation delivering the impact intended. Step 8: Final recommendations Based on the ‘deep dive’ assessments, final recommendations were made on each of the three organisations. We concluded that all three organisations are undertaking high impact work to improve climate policy in Australia. We further concluded that the impact of a marginal donation to each organisation would be high. We therefore recommended all three organisations for additional funding. Endnotes [1] See for eg. Charmaz, Kathy. 2008. “Constructionism and Grounded Theory.” In Handbook of Constuctionist Research , edited by J Holstein and J Gubrium, 397–412. New York. // BACK

This grant to BlueGreen Alliance will fund its work to unite labor and green groups behind industrial policy that is good for the climate. BlueGreen Alliance Foundation // BACK Overview The Giving Green Fund plans to award a restricted grant to the BlueGreen Alliance Foundation (BGAF) . This is one of a series of grants to support an ecosystem of nonprofits working to expand and decarbonize domestic industrial production through increased public and private investment and trade policy that favors cleaner industrial material imports. While most of BGAF’s work is focused on US stakeholders, markets, and policies, we think these efforts, when combined with trade policies such as a carbon border adjustment mechanism, can have a global impact. This falls within our philanthropic strategy of decarbonizing heavy industry. please see Giving Green’s deep dive report on decarbonizing heavy industry for more information, including risks and potential co-benefits, recommended sub-strategies, theory of change, funding need, and key uncertainties. Last updated: October 2024 What is BlueGreen Alliance Foundation (BGAF)? The BlueGreen Alliance Foundation (BGAF) is a U.S.-based 501(c)(3) organization founded in 2006. Its mission is to align the interests of labor unions and environmental organizations to solve today’s climate and other environmental problems in ways that create and maintain quality jobs and build a clean, thriving, and equitable economy. The BlueGreen Alliance Foundation works with the BlueGreen Alliance (BGA)—a national partnership that unites labor unions and environmental organizations around job-creating climate and environmental solutions—to achieve its mission. BGA’s membership currently includes 14 of the largest U.S. labor unions and environmental groups. Why are we funding BGAF, and how could it help reduce emissions? We think successful industrial policy in the US will depend heavily on engagement and support from labor unions. We believe this to be especially true in the context of trade policy such as a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), for which bipartisan momentum is building. Given the potential for a CBAM to grow domestic industrial production and jobs, we think BGAF’s strong partnerships with labor unions position it to be a driving force behind CBAM design and advocacy. Its work includes: Ensuring federal investments realize their potential benefits for workers and communities. BGAF conducts administrative advocacy, educational support, and technical assistance to ensure the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) industrial investments achieve transformative emissions reduction, jobs, and equity goals. It is also working to build support for new investments in transforming key heavy-emitting industries like steel, aluminum, and cement. Scaling federal and state procurement policy: The Federal Buy Clean Initiative brings together the federal agencies responsible for 90% of government procurement to incorporate the associated emissions of products, including industrial materials, into procurement processes and policies. This initiative also includes federal-state partnerships. BGAF is working to ensure that the relevant funding and programs within the Inflation Reduction Act are disbursed and implemented fully and strategically to lay a solid foundation from which the Federal Buy Clean Initiative can build. Advancing strategic trade policy : BGAF educates stakeholders and policymakers about the climate, economic, and equity benefits of a strategically designed tariff on high-carbon-intensity imports, including industrial products. Several pieces of legislation have been introduced proposing variants of a CBAM, and BGAF believes that it is a critical time to focus efforts on this policy opportunity. Building a pro-jobs and climate narrative : BGAF thinks increased support for existing and future climate policies can be built, in part, through efforts to highlight their positive effects on job creation and community revitalization. To this end, BGAF is building a narrative to demonstrate the economic possibilities made possible by green industrial policy.5 Why do we think BGAF will use this funding well? Given BGAF’s strong track record and partnerships, especially with respect to developing and advocating for Buy Clean policies, we think it is uniquely positioned to influence policies that strengthen the domestic economy, expand job opportunities, and reduce heavy industry emissions. Overall, we think BGAF’s efforts can broaden support for critical policies such as public procurement and tariffs. For more on the difference between the grantees of the Giving Green Fund and our Top Nonprofits, please see this blog post on the Giving Green Fund. BlueGreen Alliance Foundation is a 501(c)(3) entity and BlueGreen Alliance is a 501(c)(4) entity. As Giving Green is part of IDinsight, which is itself a charitable, tax-exempt organization, we are only offering an opinion on the charitable activities of the BlueGreen Alliance Foundation, and not the BlueGreen Alliance. This is a nonpartisan analysis (study or research) and is provided for educational purposes.

We chose Beyond Zero Emissions as one of the most effective climate organisations. Read more about our decision. Beyond Zero Emissions: Recommendation // BACK Last updated in 2024. Giving Green recommends Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE) as one of Australia's most effective organisations combating climate change. Their evidence-based theory of change is driving comprehensive and actionable research worthy of support. Australia has many comparative advantages in decarbonising emissions from heavy industry. Thus, investments in this area can lead to reduced global emissions and a stronger Australian economy. However, the path to implementing needed changes is often fraught with political potholes and policy detours. Beyond Zero Emissions develops plans that the government can adapt to advance new clean industries, decarbonise domestic and export emissions, and leverage promising economic opportunities. Beyond Zero Emissions’ policy expertise can contribute to substantive policy changes and industry actions to significantly reduce carbon emissions in Australia and globally. Beyond Zero Emissions’ ambitious plan for accelerating the development of green industry in Australia would impact Australia’s climate output and reduce hard-to-decarbonise industrial emissions worldwide. Beyond Zero Emissions reported a funding gap of $1.4 million AUD for the 2024 period and would use additional funds to further expand its policy impacts. For more information, please see our deep dive research report and a summary below. What is Beyond Zero Emissions? Launched in 2006, Beyond Zero Emissions is an Australia-based nonprofit and think-tank focused on industry engagement, policy research, and advocacy that seeks to transition Australia to a zero-emissions economy. How can Beyond Zero Emissions help combat climate change? Beyond Zero Emissions aims to combat climate change by engaging with industry, producing policy research, and engaging in public policy advocacy. It focuses on decarbonising Australian heavy industry and heavy industry exports, which comprise a substantial and neglected portion of Australian emissions. What does Beyond Zero Emissions do? Beyond Zero Emissions engages with industry and experts to identify large-scale methods of decarbonising sectors of the Australian economy. This research contributes to specific policy proposals with the government at state and federal levels (prioritising exported emissions, the largest portion of Australia’s emissions profile). What evidence is there of Beyond Zero Emissions’ effectiveness? BZE has made significant progress in passing climate policy and accelerating critical climate-relevant projects. Experts we interviewed cited BZE’s work on Renewable Energy Industrial Precincts (REIPs) and the National Supergrid as integral to the creation of recent REIPs and renewable energy zones. Experts further cited Beyond Zero Emissions’ Million Jobs Plan as having a significant impact on climate policy at both federal and state levels. More recently, BZE’s policy proposals have fast-tracked $3 billion of government investment in transition projects, with the federal Rewiring the Nation program likely being influenced by BZE’s National Supergrid report. Similarly, a number of legislative and funding recommendations from BZE’s REIP program have been adopted in the National Net Zero Authority, the National Reconstruction Fund, and the Powering the Regions fund. BZE’s future work seems highly promising. Their ongoing work in research and engagement to inform policy details of the Australian Renewable Industry Package, a potential $100 billion investment, pushes for an ambitious clean industry export strategy which, if implemented, could power some of Australia’s most impactful and economically beneficial work on climate. BZE is also recognised as a significant contributor to the climate movement at large. In 2020, BZE was awarded Best International Climate Change and Environment Think Tank by the UK’s Prospect Magazine and received the Environmental Philanthropy Award from Philanthropy Australia. What would Beyond Zero Emissions do with your donation? Donating to Beyond Zero Emissions will advance their successful work advocating for the deployment of Renewable Energy Industrial Precincts and support policy impacts relating to clean Australian exports, cleantech supply chains, and industrial decarbonisation. Funding would also be used on projects to counter disinformation about clean technologies. Why is Giving Green excited about Beyond Zero Emissions? Beyond Zero Emissions supports green industry development in Australia in an economically sustainable way and focuses on high-scale solutions. We think that there is strong evidence to support its theory of change, that Beyond Zero Emissions has positioned itself as a leader in the Australian climate space, and that it is implementing highly impactful work. These factors drive our funding recommendation. Donate to Beyond Zero Emissions to advance the decarbonisation of industrial emissions in Australia and worldwide. Giving Green is part of IDInsight Inc., a charitable, tax-exempt organization. This is a non-partisan analysis (study or research) and is provided for educational purposes. // BACK

Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering // BACK Overview The Giving Green Fund plans to award a grant to The Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering (DSG) to build governance capacity and policy engagement, support the creation of civil-society consortia, and facilitate global collaboration on Solar Radiation Management (SRM), particularly in climate-vulnerable regions. DSG is a global nonprofit organization working towards just and inclusive deliberation for research on and the potential use of SRM. This grant falls within our philanthropic strategy of solar radiation management (SRM) . We recognize the significant uncertainties surrounding SRM and believe its deployment should be considered carefully and inclusively. The complexity and interconnectedness of Earth’s natural systems make it difficult to predict how SRM effects would manifest and to what extent we could mitigate them. Please see Giving Green’s deep dive report on SRM for more information about SRM, including risks and potential co-benefits, recommended sub-strategies, theory of change, funding need, and key uncertainties. Last updated: October 2024 What is The Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering (DSG)? The Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering (DSG) was established in 2023 with the mission to empower civil society and decision-makers to engage in SRM policy. As climate-vulnerable countries are often sidelined, DSG puts their perspectives at the center of the conversation. DSG actively builds relations and engages with climate-vulnerable communities across North America, Europe, Australia, Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS), South Asia, and Africa. DSG does not advocate for or against solar geoengineering deployment but aims to create inclusive and participatory governance for decision-making on research and potential deployment. To achieve this objective, DSG carries out the following activities: Global Engagement—DSG engages with local stakeholders including civil society, academia, and policymakers to build relationships and networks and lay the groundwork for SRM conversations. Youth Engagement—DSG believes youth are central to future decision-making around SRM and works to increase youth awareness and participation. Policy—DSG works closely with stakeholders in climate-vulnerable communities on governance processes and encourages engagement in SRM policy. Research—DSG contributes to the existing literature in social and physical sciences. Communications—DSG engages with journalists to build their capacity and advances nuanced messaging and framing around SRM to foster stakeholder engagement. What are we funding at DSG, and how could it help advance inclusive and informed decision-making around the potential deployment of SRM? We are funding DSG to advance its work on SRM governance structures. DSG’s scope of work is tailored to its strategic approach in a given climate-vulnerable region: In PSIDS, DSG plans to conduct a landscape assessment of climate risks and socio-economic contexts and engage with key stakeholders and existing governance structures in the region. In Africa, DSG will hold on-the-ground conversations with policymakers and think tanks and create knowledge-building materials based on the stakeholders’ needs. DSG has already completed initial scoping and early outreach in this geography. In the LAC region, DSG plans to conduct workshops with policymakers and civil society in preparation for the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-7) scheduled for December 2025, where solar geoengineering is expected to be a key topic. These workshops would foster discussions about the LAC region's environmental, social, and economic contexts, ultimately helping to develop informed positions on solar geoengineering. We believe that DSG’s work in civil society capacity building, public engagement, and international collaboration can lead to more inclusive and participatory decision-making around SRM. Strengthening governance is necessary to enable responsible and transparent research and to mitigate risks associated with SRM. Inclusive and participatory governance frameworks can ensure accountability to climate-vulnerable countries in SRM-related decisions. Why do we think DSG will use this funding well? Given that DSG is a nascent organization, we believe catalytic funding is crucial to supporting its work. DSG has already achieved several early wins demonstrating its potential to be a leading organization in setting up governance frameworks. In its first year alone, DSG has initiated engagements in India, Pakistan, South Africa, Kenya, Latin America, and the Arctic with over 100 civil society organizations and policymakers and has hosted over 12 capacity-building events. DSG has co-led multi-part capacity-building workshops in partnership with the African Climate Foundation attended by more than 180 attendees representing organizations from across 14 African nations. Further, it has participated in over 10 major international events, including UNEA-6, COP28, and GeoMIP, and shared expertise on panels at key platforms including SXSW and the UN Science Summit. DSG's ongoing efforts to expand partnerships and geographies indicate an exciting trajectory for broader impact. Giving Green believes that additional climate donations are likely to be most impactful when directed to our top nonprofits. For a number of reasons , we may choose to recommend grants to other organizations for work that we believe is at least as impactful as grants to our top recommendations. We are highlighting this grant to offer transparency to donors to the Giving Green Fund as well as to provide a resource for donors who are particularly interested in this impact strategy. This is a nonpartisan analysis (study or research) and is provided for educational purposes.

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

Read Giving Green's research on state legislative advocacy's role in addressing climate change. State Legislative Advocacy // 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. What role can state-level or regional policy change in the US play in addressing climate change, especially in the absence of national climate policy? What factors determine which approaches to state-level policy change are most promising? In this document, we share our team's thinking on state-level policy change, our next focus for recommendations. We also present the findings from our initial round of research on a short-list of climate activism organizations we identified through our own search and consultation with climate policy experts. We overview each organization's operations and accomplishments to date along with their organizational structure and finances, and we provide our reasoning on why we did or did not select each organization for further research in 2020. State_Legislative_Advocacy .pdf Download PDF Note: This is a non-partisan analysis (study or research) and is provided for educational purposes.

Do soil carbon offsets sequester CO2 emissions? Our independent analysis finds the best offsets and carbon removals. Enhanced Soil Carbon Management // BACK Soil carbon sequestration (SCS) refers to long-term carbon storage in soil. Although SCS occurs naturally, it has been disrupted by human activity, particularly farming. Farmers can enhance SCS by adopting soil carbon management practices that add carbon back into the soil and/or avoid carbon loss. Typical practices include the following: livestock grazing management, cover cropping, organic and synthetic inputs, and tillage practices. Although enhanced soil carbon management is one of the only carbon dioxide removal practices that can already be deployed at large-scale, Giving Green does not recommend soil carbon offsets. It is challenging to measure whether soil carbon management practices are increasing stored carbon, and most soil carbon projects do not have a plan for ensuring permanence. This report last updated April 19, 2022. Questions and comments are welcome. Download the full report to access the appendix, detailing methods for measurement of changes in soil carbon, and the full list of works cited. 2022-04 Enhanced Soil Carbon Management .pdf Download PDF • 6.76MB Image: Dan Meyers What is soil carbon? There are two types of soil carbon: soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil inorganic carbon (SIC). Soil organic carbon – SOC is “composed of soil microbes including bacteria and fungi, decaying material from once-living organisms such as plant and animal tissues, fecal material, and products formed from their decomposition” (Ontl & Schulte, 2012). SOC levels depend on interactions between ecosystem processes such as photosynthesis, respiration, and decomposition. These processes are influenced by climatic conditions, especially soil temperature and soil moisture. For example, dry regions tend to have lower SOC levels than temperature and tropical regions. Soil inorganic carbon – SIC, primarily found as carbonate minerals such as calcite and dolomite, is formed either through the wearing-away of rocks or from soil minerals reacting with atmospheric CO2. How is carbon stored in soil, and how is it lost? Soil gains and loses carbon as part of the carbon cycle, which involves the travel of carbon atoms between several different carbon pools (e.g., the Earth’s crust, the atmosphere, the biosphere). For example, carbon can enter the soil from the atmosphere when plants fix CO2 from the air and release fixed carbon into the soil via their roots. Carbon can also enter the soil when leaf and root litter and non-living microbial biomass become part of the soil. SOC leaves the soil when microorganisms break down organic carbon sources and release CO2 during cellular respiration. Although SIC is generally considered more stable as a carbon stock than SOC, it can still decrease due to agricultural practices that affect water flow, land use, and soil acidification (Raza et al., 2021). What determines whether soil is a carbon source or sink? Soil can either be a net sink or source of carbon, depending on the balance between the soil’s carbon inputs and outputs. This balance is influenced by factors such as types of above-ground plants present, types of substances released by plant roots, types of microorganisms present in the soil, and environmental variables (e.g., soil moisture, soil temperature, and nitrogen levels in the soil). Turning soil into a net sink of CO2 typically means increasing the amount of carbon input (e.g., increasing above- and below-ground biomass) and/or reducing carbon losses (e.g., restricting soil disturbance). What accelerates carbon loss from soil? Soil degradation has been accelerated by human activities, such as deforestation, overgrazing, and intensive agriculture (Lemus & Lal, 2005). These activities can affect carbon loss in various ways: Disrupting the soil structure – Soil disturbances can increase soil erosion and run-off, transporting carbon-rich material away from a field (Starr et al., 1999). Exposing soil carbon to oxidative processes – Practices such as tilling exposes soil carbon to oxygen and facilitates oxidation, releasing CO2 in the process. Reducing plant roots and residues – Deforestation and overgrazing decrease how much plant roots and residues are in the soil. These activities reduce carbon inputs and negatively affect how much organic matter can accumulate in the soil (Jastrow, 1996). Increasing temperature – Deforestation can raise soil temperature by changing solar radiation, wind speed, and air temperature (Hashimoto & Suzuki, 2004). Because microbial activity generally increases with soil temperature up to a point, increased temperatures can increase soil microorganisms’ rate of cellular respiration and how much CO2 they produce (Walker et al., 2018). It is estimated that soil degradation due to agricultural land use has led to a loss of about 133 billion metric tons of carbon over the past 12,000 years, with carbon loss accelerating over the past 200 years (Sanderman et al., 2017). How much CO2 can enhanced soil carbon management mitigate? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has medium confidence that enhanced soil carbon management for croplands has a technical mitigation potential of 0.4 to 6.8 billion metric tons of CO2- equivalent per year (Pathak et al., 2022). This wide range may be representative of how much uncertainty there is over how much agriculture practices improve SCS. Its economic mitigation potential, or how much carbon can be sequestered at a cost less than or equal to $100 per ton of CO2-equivalent, is closer to the lower end of this range. Enhanced soil carbon management as a carbon offset Mechanism Practices that improve SCS can either remove carbon and/or avoid emissions. For example, growing perennial crops instead of annual crops may increase carbon capture via photosynthesis throughout the year and reduce soil disturbances, which helps prevent carbon loss. For more information, please see Table 1. The rate at which soil can sequester carbon decreases as the soil becomes saturated with carbon (e.g., carbon inputs become balanced with outputs) (Stewart et al., 2007). After a new agricultural practice is adopted to increase soil carbon storage, it may take decades before the soil reaches carbon saturation; the amount of time depends on the practice, soil type, and climate zone (Hatzell & Wilcox, 2021). The IPCC uses a default saturation time of 20 years. Stored carbon may be lost after SCS management is reversed (Figure 1). For example, going from no-till methods to conventional tillage would lead to carbon loss. Figure 1: Stylized dynamics of carbon sequestration (Thamo & Pannell, 2016) Causality Soil carbon management practices that can improve SCS Soil carbon management practices that can enhance SCS include but are not limited to the following: Livestock grazing management: Livestock grazing can be rotated between pastures to stimulate plant regrowth and add manure to the soil, enhancing plant growth and soil productivity. Rotating livestock between fields also reduces soil compaction; compaction limits air and water permeability in the soil (Whalley et al., 1995) and can reduce root growth (Pandey et al., 2021). Primary mechanism(s) for increased SCS: Increased carbon input, Reduced carbon losses Increasing the amount of time that plants remain in the ground: Cover crops are meant to cover the soil and are not meant for harvest. They may be grown outside of the primary growing season (e.g., winter instead of summer). Perennial crops are intended to be grown year-round. Cover crops and perennial crops protect soil from erosion and increase carbon inputs to the soil. Primary mechanism(s) for increased SCS: Increased carbon input, Reduced carbon losses Organic and synthetic inputs: Inputs such as biochar (charcoal produced in the absence of oxygen), crop residues (plant materials left in a field after harvest), and fertilizer add nutrients and/or carbon to the soil. Inputs can enhance plant and root growth. Primary mechanism(s) for increased SCS: Increased carbon input Tillage practices: Conservation tillage practices such as no-till and strip tillage are considered less intense than conventional tillage (UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, 2017). These practices minimize soil disturbance and can lead to improved soil carbon retention. Leaving land unused for farming can also reduce soil erosion. Primary mechanism(s) for increased SCS: Reduced carbon losses Non-agricultural practices that can improve SCS include forest management, peatland restoration, coastal wetland restoration, and grassland fire management. Uncertainties related to causality Enhanced soil carbon management can reduce levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, but it is unclear to what degree and for how long. Uncertainties related to causality include the following: Dependence on local context – The degree to which soil carbon management practices can improve SCS depends on baseline practices, initial levels of SOC, and location-specific factors such as geographic, soil, and climatic conditions (Moore et al., 2021). These factors determine how much additional carbon can be stored in the soil and when the soil will reach its saturation point. Challenges in measuring soil carbon accurately It is challenging to separate the ‘signal’ of management effects on soil carbon from local ‘noise’ given that (1) the total amount of stored carbon in steady-state changes very slowly over time, (2) levels of SOC can vary significantly across a single field (Bradford et al., 2019) (3) weather can cause short-term fluctuations in COS. Additionally, the net addition of soil carbon per hectare is very small (Pathak et al., 2022). Accurate direct measurements of SOC require sampling at high spatial density, which can be expensive and time-consuming. Although soil crediting projects can rely on modeling instead of direct measurements to quantify soil carbon gains, this is probably less accurate given the various assumptions that the models must make. Unknowns in soil science – There are still considerable unknowns in soil science. For example, few studies on SCS have included soil carbon samples taken at depths beyond 30 cm; it is possible that no-till practices have been overvalued given the lack of sampling at greater depths (Meurer et al., 2018). Lack of differentiation between soil carbon management projects – It is unclear how the efficacy of different soil carbon management projects compare against one another. There needs to be further work on disaggregating the various practices that contribute to SCS (Meurer et al., 2018). It is essential to differentiate between the various methods because they use different mechanisms (e.g., increasing carbon input and/or reducing carbon loss) to increase stored carbon and vary in feasibility. For example, farmers may view some practices as more acceptable than others. Potential increase in other greenhouse gases (GHGs) – Soil carbon management projects involving nitrogen fertilizers can increase nitrous oxide emissions if the fertilizer is not appropriately managed. Potential for carbon leakage – Soil carbon management projects can lead to carbon leakage where increases in GHGs occur outside of project boundaries (Murray et al., 2007). For example, if farmers who practice no-till had lower corn yields, this decreased supply could increase corn prices and encourage other farmers to grow more corn using conventional tilling practices. In general, causality is uncertain for soil carbon offsets. A project would need to have excellent data supporting causality for us to be confident in it. Project additionality It seems likely that many soil carbon management practices have project additionality, meaning they must be enabled by carbon offsets. Namely, there are enough upfront capital costs, operational costs, and other obstacles (e.g., access to new markets) that most farmers probably need financing to maintain these practices. Furthermore, these new agricultural practices would need to be maintained indefinitely to prevent stored carbon from being released. At the same time, however, some farmers have already adopted certain practices without any need for offsets given their co-benefits, such as potentially higher crop yields. This raises some questions as to these practices’ additionality if farmers are willing to adopt new practices without carbon offset credits. Finally, it is unclear how project additionality varies between different soil carbon management practices. Marginal additionality Marginal additionality is achieved if each soil carbon offset leads to additional GHG removal. SCS scores high on marginal additionality because SCS practices can be expanded to more and more farmers and land. Permanence SCS is impermanent. Because soil carbon loss depends on the balance between carbon inputs and outputs, sites can lose soil carbon naturally outside of farming practices (Murray et al., 2007). Severe droughts, for example, can make an environment inhospitable to plants and therefore reduce carbon inputs. Soil carbon loss can also occur after farmers stop soil carbon management practices and switch to conventional methods. Therefore, farmers would likely need to be paid to continue soil carbon management practices over the long term even after the soil has reached its saturation point to maintain gains in soil carbon storage. Switching from soil carbon management practices to conventional methods is unlikely to lead to immediate carbon loss. For example, a synthesis report on periodic tillage found that a single tillage event is unlikely to eliminate carbon gains immediately (Conant et al., 2007). Instead, a single tillage event could lead to a decline in soil carbon of 1-11%, and losses increase as tillage frequency increases. Additionally, one study found that when farmyard manure was applied to a cereal cropping system for twenty years and then halted, the soil still contained about 2.5 times more soil organic matter (a source of soil carbon) 150 years later than soil that never received manure (Johnston et al., 2009, p. 1). Finally, decay kinetics predict that it would take at least several years for soil to lose all newly gained carbon (Schimel et al., 1994). Co-benefits Benefits to soil, plant, and ecological health In addition to its climate benefits, soil carbon also provides multiple benefits to soil, plant, and ecological health (Milne et al., 2015). These benefits include the following: Maintaining soil structure – Soil carbon helps maintain soil structure by forming larger groups of soil particles (aggregates). These larger aggregates increase the soil’s water storage capacity by creating larger pores between aggregates. Larger pore space also improves aeration and drainage. Supporting microbial activity – Soil carbon provides substrate and energy for microorganisms. Microorganisms play a role in promoting plant growth by influencing root development (Verbon & Liberman, 2016), outcompeting harmful microorganisms (Mendes et al., 2013), and increasing the bioavailability of nutrients (van der Heijden et al., 2008). Supporting plant productivity – Soil carbon can improve retention of organic nitrogen, phosphorus, and other nutrients that support plant productivity. Resisting erosion – Soil carbon helps keep the soil more physically cohesive, which can help prevent erosion and have positive effects on both water quality and local ecology. Benefits to farmers Improvements to soil health due to improved SCS can potentially benefit farmers in numerous ways: Increased crop yield – Because soil carbon improves soil health, adding one ton of carbon per hectare on degraded cropland soil can potentially increase crop yield by a range from 0.5 kg per hectare for cowpeas to 40 kg per hectare for wheat (Lal, 2004). However, the degree to which increased soil carbon impacts crop yield relies on the field’s existing soil health and crop type. Improved climate resilience – Increased soil carbon content can make soil more resilient against droughts (Iizumi & Wagai, 2019) and heavy rainfall (Rabot et al., 2018). Reduced need for fertilizer – Healthy soil can reduce farmers’ fertilizer needs, leading to cost savings and reduced environmental impact (Oldfield et al., 2019). Negative co-benefits to farmers Farmers may not want to adopt soil carbon management practices if they do not fit their preferences. Risks or setbacks related to these practices include the following (Marland et al., 2001): Increased risk – Conventional tillage kills weeds by burying them. Less intensive tillage methods, which are better for SCS, may decrease crop yield by increasing the number of weeds. More intensive management practices – Some practices may increase farmers’ workloads. Less intensive tillage methods, for example, may increase the amount of weeding that farmers need to do and/or lead to increased herbicide use. Additionally, rotating livestock between fields is more work than letting livestock graze in the same area. Need for long-term commitment – Farmers may be unwilling to commit to soil carbon management practices over the long term. Furthermore, it is unclear how this liability would be passed on between farmers when farm ownership changes. Notably, nearly 40% of US farmland in 2012 was operated by renters (Amundson & Biardeau, 2018). Cost-effectiveness According to the literature on SCS, practices that enhance SCS can cost between -$45 to $100 per ton of CO2 (de Coninck et al., 2018); negative costs are associated with co-benefits such as improved productivity and resilience. There is a wide range of possible costs because SCS potential varies from place to place. For instance, degraded soils have a higher potential for soil carbon gain than healthier soils. Additionally, the costs of soil carbon management practices differ. The IPCC reports that land management for cropland and grazing land has a cost of $20 per ton of CO2-equivalent while restoring organic soils costs $100 per ton of CO2-equivalent (Nabuurs et al., 2022). In 2021, Microsoft spent $2 million on soil carbon credits from Truterra/Land O’Lakes at a contracted volume of 100,000 metric tons of CO2 removed and a contracted durability of 20 years (Microsoft, 2021; Vasquez, 2021). The cost of this project, which focuses on science-based crop management, was $20 per ton of CO2. Using CarbonPlan’s permanence calculator, the cost of permanent CO2 removal ranges from $73 to $123 per metric ton when we assume a project duration of 20 years, discount rate of 3%, risk of project failure of 10% per year, and permanent cost of $500 per metric ton of CO2. It is unclear what agricultural practices are involved in this particular project; it may include some combination of cover crops, reduced tillage, and reduced usage of fertilizer and chemicals (Plume, 2021). Microsoft has also purchased soil carbon credits related to cattle grazing management at a contracted volume of almost 100,000 metric tons of CO2 removed, but this cost is not publicly available. Giving Green’s assessment of SCS We are concerned about SCS’s permanence and the high uncertainty over whether agricultural practices are improving SCS. In particular, it is challenging to measure changes in stored carbon over the long term accurately, and there are still open questions on what SCS practices are most effective and where. Therefore, although we view SCS’ co-benefits and additionality positively, we are generally skeptical about soil carbon credits overall. In order to be considered for our recommendation, a project would need especially good data on actual increase in soil sequestration, and a plan to maintain permanence.

4 Corners Carbon Coalition // BACK Overview The Giving Green Fund plans to award a grant to the 4 Corners Carbon Coalition (4CCC) , a platform for local communities to drive real-world, community-anchored carbon dioxide removal projects (CDR) together. This is one of a series of ecosystem grants supporting foundational work to unlock innovative policy approaches for durable CDR demand. 4CCC falls within our philanthropic strategy of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) . Please see Giving Green’s deep dive report on CDR for more information, including risks and potential co-benefits, recommended sub-strategies, theory of change, funding need, and key uncertainties. Last updated: October 2024 What is the 4 Corners Carbon Coalition (4CCC)? The 4 Corner Carbon Coalition (4CCC) was an initiative formerly administered by Boulder County’s Office of Climate Action and Sustainability that has transitioned to being fiscally sponsored by the nonprofit Terraset . 4CCC was launched in 2021 as a partnership between local governments in the Four Corners region of the US (i.e., Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah). Each local government had independently acknowledged that they would need CDR to support decarbonization goals and eventually realized they could have more impact by working as a collective. 4CCC is technology-neutral and prioritizes pathways that can store carbon for 100+ years; deliver economic, social, and ecological benefits; have the potential to scale in the members’ region(s); and do not harm or burden communities. Projects supported by the coalition are selected by a committee of local advisors from participating communities with input from a panel of CDR experts. What are we funding at 4CCC, and how could it help scale demand for CDR? Our funding will support 4CCC’s first program expansion outside of the Four Corners region. It will launch a new project in New York’s Hudson Valley to demonstrate the potential economic and ecological benefits of using biochar as a soil amendment on farmlands. In this instance, the campaign will be led by a coalition of civil society organizations – 4CCC, Sustainable Hudson Valley , and the Cornell Cooperative Extension . Funds will be used to support the utilization of biochar on 10 to 15 farms located in the 10 counties that make up the Hudson Valley region. Each awarded farm, selected through a competitive proposal process, will deploy biochar on one acre of working farmland in spring 2025, and participate in a 24-month impact study and evaluation led by Cornell Cooperative Extention to measure impact. The Hudson Valley is a strategic location between Albany and New York City, making it home to, or easily reachable by, many state-level policymakers. 4CCC will coordinate with advocacy partners who are preparing a bill to be introduced during the 2025 New York legislative session that incentivizes working-lands -based CDR methods, including biochar. 4CCC and its partners plan to promote this project to policymakers and the general public through earned media, educational events, and site tours. Community-driven projects and subnational policies can build political will and unlock economic opportunities and unexplored applications for CDR. We think local initiatives such as 4CCC can help to lay the groundwork to scale CDR through a portfolio of different policy vehicles into which CDR demand can be embedded and for which economic and ecological co-benefits may be more directly valued. Why do we think 4CCC will use this funding well? 4CCC successfully implemented projects and influenced state-level legislation in its first program iteration in the Four Corners region. Its initial campaign funded four catalytic grants for projects integrating CDR and concrete. During this campaign, Colorado’s Carbon Management Act was up for consideration, and advocates for the bill referenced and directed attention to Boulder County’s involvement in 4CCC to demonstrate local economic opportunities and public support. Its current campaign in the region is selecting projects that integrate CDR and liability biomass . Based on this evidence, we think 4CCC will be able to replicate its success and impact in its new program, contextualized in the Hudson Valley. Giving Green believes that additional climate donations are likely to be most impactful when directed to our top nonprofits. For a number of reasons , we may choose to recommend grants to other organizations for work that we believe is at least as impactful as grants to our top recommendations. We are highlighting this grant to offer transparency to donors to the Giving Green Fund as well as to provide a resource for donors who are particularly interested in this impact strategy. This is a nonpartisan analysis (study or research) and is provided for educational purposes.

Our research on Future Cleantech Architects' work to close neglected innovation gaps in climate technology. Future Cleantech Architects: Deep Dive // BACK Download the report: Future Cleantech Architects - Deep Dive .pdf Download PDF • 682KB Summary What is Future Cleantech Architects? Future Cleantech Architects (FCA) is a climate innovation think tank based in Germany. Hard-to-abate sectors—such as heavy industry, firm power, and aviation—require significant technological advances to decarbonize yet are often neglected by funders and governments. FCA was founded in 2020 to close these innovation gaps by (i) engaging with policymakers to prioritize research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) for these critical interventions and (ii) leading research consortia to advance scientific knowledge for these applications. How could Future Cleantech Architects address climate change? FCA promotes and advances innovation in hard-to-abate sectors through policy advocacy, field building, thought leadership, and technical analysis. We think these activities will accelerate the transition towards clean industrial processes. Future Cleantech Architects’ theory of change: FCA’s policy advocacy and field-building efforts are based on its technical analysis, which identifies innovation gaps and barriers to progress. We think the main outputs from FCA’s policy advocacy would be the EU increasing its funding for industrial decarbonization RD&D, implementing regulations that support low-carbon production, and enacting low-carbon procurement policies. We think its field-building work elevates neglected and important sectors and results in a) more money and talent directed towards high-impact decarbonization pathways and b) more knowledge, technical, and policy support accessible for producers to advance RD&D projects. Although FCA’s work has an EU focus, we think there is a strong argument for global spillover effects through policy leadership, trade regulations like the carbon border adjustment mechanism, and technological innovation. What is Future Cleantech Architects’ cost-effectiveness? In 2024, we developed a highly subjective back-of-the-envelope calculation (BOTEC) to estimate the costs and impacts of FCA’s policy engagement for the third revision of the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive. Overall, we estimate that FCA is highly cost-effective. We have low confidence in the accuracy of this BOTEC, and focusing this calculation on one aspect of FCA’s policy engagement is unlikely to generalize to the organization’s overall cost-effectiveness. However, we view it as a positive input into our overall assessment of FCA. Is there room for more funding? FCA has ambitious growth plans to double in size in 2025. Its expansion aims to build capacity to shape the agenda of the next EU policy cycle, expand its analytical and advocacy work on clean firm power, and grow its international reach by leveraging its connections to intergovernmental organizations and building a presence in key countries. We think FCA can productively absorb more funding based on this expansion plan. Are there major co-benefits or adverse effects? We think the co-benefits and potential risks of FCA’s efforts are similar to those for the broader effort to decarbonize heavy industry—mainly, the co-benefit of improved air quality and uncertain effects on global employment. Key uncertainties and open questions: Our key uncertainties include the degree to which FCA can absorb more funding, its ability to rapidly grow in size and work effectively in new regions, and the feasibility of ambitious climate legislation in the current EU policy ecosystem. Bottom line / next steps: We classify Future Cleantech Architects (FCA) as one of our Top Nonprofits addressing climate change. We think FCA’s focus on and expertise in neglected areas in the climate mitigation portfolio fill a critical space in the civil society ecosystem. In addition, our impression is that FCA has been successful at folding this technical expertise into the EU policymaking process, thereby increasing the knowledge of policymakers and the effectiveness of policy vehicles. We also think FCA’s expanding international presence will benefit global climate discourse.

The Superpower Institute is championing Australia as a renewable energy superpower with global impact. The Superpower Institute: Deep Dive // BACK Download our deep dive report on The Superpower Institute: The Superpower Institute Deep Dive .pdf Download PDF • 1.42MB Summary Giving Green classifies The Superpower Institute as one of Australia’s top climate nonprofits in 2024. We think its theory of change is compelling and that its team has uniquely strong expertise. We are also impressed by its thought leadership in popularising the idea of Australia as a major renewable energy exporter. Australia’s green industrial exports are a lever by which Australia could reduce a significant portion of world emissions in sectors which would be difficult for most other countries to decarbonise—as explored in Giving Green’s report, High-Impact Climate Giving in Australia . The Superpower Institute can help to accelerate the development of green industry in Australia by working to address policy gaps that can lay the foundation for green industry. We think its research and policy work can lead to changes which would make green industrial work significantly more likely to happen at scale in Australia. Achieving this would drive down the costs of a number of green industrial goods worldwide and foster innovation that could be utilised in multiple other countries. The Superpower Institute has ambitious plans for accelerating Australia’s development into a major renewable energy exporter and a major exporter of green industrial products. In addition to addressing domestic emissions (which make up approximately 1% of global emissions), The Superpower Institute's approach aims to enable Australia to play a role in decarbonising up to 7% of global carbon emissions. If successful, this strategy would have significantly higher impact on addressing climate change than any domestic strategy, reducing hard-to-decarbonise industrial emissions globally, while also having strong economic benefits for Australia. The Superpower Institute reported a funding gap of $1.5 million AUD for its research and policy work and would use additional funds to further its research and policy work. What is The Superpower Institute? The Superpower Institute is a climate think tank run by some of Australia’s most experienced economists, implementing a strategy focused on reducing Australia’s industrial export emissions in ways that can lead to significant economic benefits for Australia. It aims not only to help Australia decarbonise its domestic emissions but also to have significantly larger impacts on climate globally through decarbonising export products. The Superpower Institute primarily works towards accelerating the development of low-emissions heavy industry in Australia, reducing emissions from Australia’s industrial exports, and catalysing major green export industries in Australia. This is among the highest-scale climate strategies operating in Australia, as industrial export emissions currently comprise a very large and comparatively neglected portion of Australia’s emissions profile. How could The Superpower Institute reduce greenhouse gases? The Superpower Institute's research has been used and will likely continue to be used to inform Australian policymakers. The Superpower Institute has a strong focus on strategies that can allow Australia to be a major green energy exporter . This approach is especially important, as exported emissions currently make up the vast majority of Australia’s emissions profile but are still comparatively neglected. Much of The Superpower Institute's research works to highlight the economic viability and significant economic advantages of developing green industry in Australia and having Australia become a green exporter at a global scale. The Superpower Institute highlights both macro benefits, including improved economic growth and development of new industries, as well as micro benefits, including significantly improved employment opportunities in regional communities. A number of Australian policy insiders interviewed by Giving Green have suggested that this emphasis on economic advantage is critical for climate policy advocacy work in Australia to gain traction. The Superpower Institute focuses on work which could have the largest impact on climate, such as accelerating Australia’s green exports industry and introducing emissions monitoring systems to allow Australia’s green products to be recognised internationally by, for example, Europe’s CBAM. Best practice emissions monitoring will also ensure that National Inventory data is accurate and robust and accurately pinpoint whether policy frameworks such as the government’s federal Safeguard Mechanism are having the impact that is needed. Giving Green’s method of analysis: In assessing The Superpower Institute, Giving Green engaged in a short literature review and an extensive series of interviews with a variety of experts about The Superpower Institute's approach, including climate policy experts, government policymakers, advocacy practitioners, academics, foundations, and think tanks. In addition to speaking directly with The Superpower Institute, Giving Green also reviewed publicly available information on The Superpower Institute, including its policy reports, website, and recent media coverage. Giving Green also drew insights from our report on Australian climate philanthropy , which identifies highest-impact strategies in Australian climate work. Room for more funding: In our assessment, we conclude that The Superpower Institute has room to impactfully deploy more funding and could deliver substantial returns from additional marginal investment. Additional funding would enable it to expand its research and policy work. In particular, research and policy work in the short term will likely focus on proposals such as the Emissions Monitoring Scheme – which would be a powerful enabling feature for developing the green industry in Australia, as well as for the successful operation of Australia’s Safeguard Mechanism. It is our impression that funding at this stage could be particularly catalytic for The Superpower Institute’s future progress. Co-benefits and co-costs: We find The Superpower Institute's work to have substantial co-benefits. These take the form of economic benefits for Australia, employment benefits for Australian regional workers, and air quality benefits for both Australia and its industrial export partners. We also identify co-costs incurred by its work, including employment loss in some of Australia’s export partners and potential economic costs to the Australian government stemming from investment in green industries. Key uncertainties: Our key uncertainties include a) whether the track record of policy change from individuals on The Superpower Institute’s team will translate to organisational success at policy change, b) whether the team will be able to manage key-person risk and maintain high performance in the long-term, and c) the fact that success of green industry may also be to some degree dependent on some international factors, which cannot be easily affected by Australian policy. However, we consider most of these uncertainties to be largely manageable, and consider the expected value of The Superpower Institute’s work to be extremely high and to be among the best philanthropic opportunities in the Australian climate space. Bottom line/next steps: Based on The Superpower Institute's early signs of traction, its strong working relationships with government, the extremely high level of expertise on its team, its strategic, high-leverage approach, and the tractability of the current political environment, we conclude that The Superpower Institute is potentially one of the most effective climate organisations in Australia, with very high potential upside impact. Giving Green considers The Superpower Institute to be a highly promising philanthropic funding option. // BACK

Our research on the Good Food Institute's work to advance alternative proteins, and why we think GFI is a top nonprofit fighting climate change in 2024. The Good Food Institute: Deep Dive // BACK Download the report: Good Food Institute deep dive .pdf Download PDF • 6.60MB Summary What is the Good Food Institute? The Good Food Institute (GFI) is a nonprofit that seeks to make alternative proteins (alt proteins) competitive with conventional proteins in terms of taste and price. Launched in 2016, GFI is headquartered in the US and has independent affiliate offices in the Asia Pacific region (based in Singapore), Brazil, Europe, India, Israel, and Japan. How could GFI help address climate change? Livestock emissions include direct emissions from livestock, such as methane release from cows, and indirect emissions, such as those caused by land use change. Reducing livestock production is an important lever for driving down emissions and freeing up some land that could be used for carbon sequestration activities. We think that GFI’s work to make alternative proteins equal to or better than conventional meat could make alternative proteins the default choice for more consumers, resulting in fewer food system emissions. What does GFI do? GFI has three focus areas: science, policy, and industry. Its science-focused activities include identifying research gaps, publishing open-source technical analyses, regranting to and advocating for open-access research, building the talent pipeline, and convening scientists. Its policy workstream includes advocating for increased government funding for alternative protein research and development, campaigning for fair-label laws, challenging cultivated meat bans, and establishing a clear path to market for cultivated meat. Its industry work includes supporting smaller alternative protein startups and building relationships with large agri-food companies to encourage them to invest in alternative protein products. What has GFI accomplished historically? We think GFI’s advocacy has helped increase public funding for alt protein R&D, such as the $523 million governments committed to alt proteins in 2023. It has also worked with governments to develop alt protein strategies and regulatory frameworks. Furthermore, it achieved victories in several labeling law initiatives and established a talent and training network for the alt protein industry under its Alt Protein Project. What’s new at GFI in 2024? GFI added significant wins to its track record in 2024. Highlights include its partnership with the Bezos Earth Fund, which unlocked $100 million of funding for three global alternative protein research centers; engagement with Singapore’s Islamic council on the ruling that cultivated meat can be halal; and opening a new office in Japan. Its ongoing work includes continued wins unlocking millions of dollars of public funding for alternative protein innovation, securing support for alternative proteins as national priorities, and challenging several cultivated meat bans in Europe and the US. What is GFI’s cost-effectiveness? In 2022, we developed a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) as a rough plausibility check estimating the cost-effectiveness of GFI’s historical work on increasing funding for alt protein research and development. We use this outcome as a proxy for the cost-effectiveness of a 2024 donation to GFI. Overall, we estimate that GFI is highly cost-effective. We have low confidence in this CEA, but generally view it as a positive input to our overall assessment of GFI. We lightly updated this CEA in 2024. Is there room for more funding? GFI is currently fundraising for its three-year goal of $125 million, running from 2023-2025, with a 2024 budget of $40.7 million. As of November 2024, GFI had approximately $52 million to raise for this goal. GFI would use this funding to maintain core operations across its seven global organizations and expand internationally, including its recent launch of GFI Japan and plans for building GFI Korea. If GFI were to meet its funding goals, it would prioritize growing activities in Korea, Japan, and other research-strong countries in Europe. Are there major co-benefits or potential risks? We think GFI’s co-benefits and potential risks are tied to those of alt proteins. Co-benefits include improved farm animal welfare; improved food security; reduced antimicrobial resistance and risk of zoonotic disease; lower land, water, and fertilizer demand; reduced risk of chronic disease from meat consumption; and reduced biodiversity loss. At the same time, there is uncertainty about the job transition that would happen if there were a major shift away from traditional livestock production. Key uncertainties and open questions: Key uncertainties include how rapidly alt proteins can improve in taste and price, how social and cultural dynamics will influence the consumer acceptance of cultivated meat, and the scalability of cultivated meat. These factors all affect the extent to which alt proteins can displace meat and reduce livestock emissions. Bottom line / next steps: We classify GFI as one of our Top Nonprofits to address climate change. We believe donations to GFI could additionally increase its organizational growth trajectory. We plan to continue to assess our key uncertainties and believe that we will be able to substantially improve our understanding of the severity and importance of these uncertainties as GFI executes its strategies in 2025.