Search Results

Giving Green recommends Future Cleantech Architects as a top climate nonprofit in 2024. Learn more about their work to decarbonize cement, hydrogen, and high-temperature heat, as well as advance broader EU innovation policy in 2025 and beyond. Future Cleantech Architects: Recommendation // BACK Future Cleantech Architects: Recommendation Giving Green classifies Future Cleantech Architects (FCA) as one of our top recommendations to address climate change. Hard-to-abate sectors—such as heavy industry, baseload power, and aviation—require significant technological advances to decarbonize, yet are often neglected by funders and governments. FCA works to close these innovation gaps by (i) engaging with policymakers to prioritize R&D for critical interventions and (ii) leading research consortia to advance scientific knowledge for these applications. We specifically assessed FCA’s work to decarbonize cement production, hydrogen production, and high-temperature heat processes across heavy industry, as well as the organization’s general work to strengthen EU climate policy. We were impressed by the level of FCA’s in-house expertise, depth of engagement with technical research, and sophisticated understanding of the innovation landscape. In addition, despite being a relatively new organization, FCA has already developed an effective track record of shaping EU policy and contributing to international climate discourse through engagement with UN organizations. We think FCA fills a critical gap in the climate policy ecosystem by connecting lessons and learnings from its ‘boots on the ground’ technical work to high-level policymaking. While we have not assessed FCA’s other program areas (aviation, long-duration energy storage, and thermal energy storage) in detail, we are confident in FCA’s strategy and work overall; our recommendation is for unrestricted funding for the organization at large. For more information, see our deep dive report on FCA and our broader report on decarbonizing heavy industry . What is Future Cleantech Architects? Future Cleantech Architects (FCA) is a climate innovation think tank based in Germany. FCA was founded in 2020, and its work focuses on neglected and hard-to-decarbonize sectors, such as heavy industry, aviation, and firm power. How could Future Cleantech Architects help address climate change? FCA promotes and advances innovation in hard-to-abate sectors by engaging with policymakers to prioritize R&D and leading consortia on technical research in these sectors. We believe this will accelerate the transition towards clean industrial processes. What does Future Cleantech Architects do? FCA uses the following strategies to promote innovation in hard-to-abate sectors: Educating key decision-makers on mitigation strategies for hard-to-abate sectors. Helping policymakers design and implement effective climate policies. Continuously monitoring the innovation landscape and building and coordinating research consortia to address technological bottlenecks. Participating in influential discussions at events like COP and convening key stakeholders at its annual Future Cleantech Festival What would Future Cleantech Architects do with your donation? FCA has ambitious growth plans to double in size in 2025. This expansion aims to build capacity to shape the agenda of the next EU policy cycle, deepen analytical and advocacy work on clean firm power, and strengthen international reach by leveraging its connections to intergovernmental organizations and building a presence in key countries. Why is Giving Green excited about Future Cleantech Architects? Because of its focus on and expertise in neglected areas of climate mitigation, we think FCA fills a critical gap in the civil society ecosystem. In addition, our impression is that FCA successfully integrates this technical expertise into the EU policymaking process, thereby increasing policymakers’ knowledge and the effectiveness of policy vehicles. We also think FCA’s expanding international presence will benefit global climate discourse. Explore ways to give to Future Cleantech Architects and more. Future Cleantech Architects is a registered charity in Germany. This is a non-partisan analysis (study or research) and is provided for educational purposes.

Giving Green is your guide to effective climate giving. We help you find evidence-based, cost-effective, high-leverage climate nonprofits. Top climate nonprofits for donors GIVE TODAY Giving Green's Top Nonprofits: 2024-2025 Clean Air Task Force Having had a successful track record of pushing for climate solutions in the US, Clean Air Task Force (CATF) is now going global. By identifying barriers to technology deployment, engaging with stakeholders, and advocating for supportive policies, CATF aims to speed up the growth of low-carbon technologies to reduce emissions broadly and quickly. We are particularly impressed that CATF has built momentum for areas of innovation that need more funding support, such as superhot rock geothermal energy, zero-carbon fuels, and the decarbonization of aviation and maritime shipping. OUR RESEARCH Future Cleantech Architects For hard-to-abate sectors like heavy industry and aviation, we do not yet have the tools to reach net zero. Future Cleantech Architects works across technical research & policy engagement to advance innovation in critical areas often neglected by funders and governments. We were impressed by Future Cleantech Architect’s depth of in-house expertise and evidence of its meaningful influence on EU climate policy. OUR RESEARCH Good Food Institute Livestock production is responsible for at least 10% of global emissions – livestock belch methane, require substantial (often deforested) grazing land, and contribute to general supply chain emissions. The Good Food Institute (GFI) seeks to make alternative proteins as affordable and delicious as conventional products. It pushes for more government funding for research, fights for fair labeling, and helps cultivated meat get to market. We thi nk GFI is a powerhouse in supporting alternative proteins, with impressive wins under its belt. OUR RESEARCH Industrious Labs Heavy industries like steel and cement are the building blocks of the global economy, accounting for one-third of greenhouse gas emissions. Industrious Labs runs comprehensive campaigns to decarbonize specific industries, targeting corporate actors and governments alike. Critically, through coalition building, regranting, and training, it is scaling advocacy well beyond its own organization. We are excited about Industrious Labs’ actionable, industry-specific strategies and the strength of its leadership team. OUR RESEARCH Opportunity Green Aviation and maritime shipping are challenging sectors to decarbonize and have not received much support from philanthropy in the past. Opportunity Green pushes for ambitious regulations, promotes clean fuels, encourages companies to adopt greener fleets, and works to reduce demand for air travel. We are especially excited about Opportunity Green’s efforts to elevate climate vulnerable countries in policy discussions, as we think this could improve the inclusivity of the process and the ambition level of policies. OUR RESEARCH Project InnerSpace Deep underground, the Earth’s crust holds abundant heat that can supply renewable, carbon-free heat and reliable, on-demand electricity. Project InnerSpace is fast-tracking next-generation technologies that can make geothermal energy available worldwide. It has a bold plan to reduce financial risks for new geothermal projects, making geothermal energy cheaper and more accessible, especially in densely populated areas in the Global South. OUR RESEARCH GIVE TODAY How we find effective climate charities Systems change To address the drivers of climate change, we need to change the rules of the game. Our research focuses on giving strategies that take a bold, systemic approach to lowering emissions, such as through crafting strong climate policy, advancing clean technologies, shaping markets, and changing norms. Our research shows that giving opportunities that focus on systems change can be an order of magnitude more effective than the best direct emissions reductions projects, such as carbon offsets. Scale, feasibility, and funding need We use three broad criteria to assess the promise of an approach: scale (how big a problem is it?), feasibility (how hard is it to address?), and funding need (how much would more donations help?). How we find effective climate nonprofits We follow a five-step research process: identify impact strategies, assess impact strategies, longlist potential organizations, evaluate specific funding opportunities, and publish recommendations. Read more ab out how we find top climate change charities .

Our research on nonprofits working to mitigate the climate crisis through work on Australian climate policy. Top Nonprofits: Australia How can Australian climate philanthropy drive global impact? What are the highest-scale ways to address climate change from Australia? And how can Australia play a uniquely important role in addressing climate globally? Our latest report finds that Australian philanthropists can maximise impact and reduce global emissions by up to 7% by backing initiatives focused on decarbonising heavy industry exports. LEARN MORE Our top nonprofits in Australia Beyond Zero Emissions 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. DONATE NOW READ OUR RESEARCH The Superpower Institute The Superpower Institute aims to help Australia seize the extraordinary economic opportunities of the post-carbon world while allowing Australia to become a major player in climate globally. The Superpower Institute has an ambitious plan for accelerating Australia’s development into a major exporter of renewable energy and green industrial products. In addition to mitigating domestic emissions, which make up approximately 1% of global emissions, The Superpower Institute’s approach may also provide Australia with an opportunity to decarbonise up to 7% of global carbon emissions. If successful, this approach would deliver significant economic benefits coupled with having high-scale impact on reducing climate impacts - having significantly higher levels of impact on climate change than could be achieved under any domestic strategy. DONATE NOW READ OUR RESEARCH The Next Economy The Next Economy's evidence-based theory of change and history of success are complemented by expansive community engagement work. Their unique insights are rooted in on-the-ground consultations, and provide policymakers with a meaningful lens through which to view climate change and then to act. The Next Economy works across all economic sectors to accelerate Australia’s transition to a climate-centered, economically sound economy. The Next Economy works with all stakeholders to tackle some of the hardest issues facing the country as Australia moves towards net zero, including the decarbonisation of the land sector and the sustainable and fair development of heavy industries key to Australia’s export future like green manufacturing and critical minerals development. The Next Economy’s ability to leverage what it is learning on the ground to influence new policies sets it apart from many other organisations. DONATE NOW READ OUR RESEARCH Our research on climate change mitigation opportunities in Australia About our approach to Australian climate giving Tackling the climate crisis requires systemic change that can only be achieved through government policy. This is why we believe climate donors can maximise their climate impact by giving to nonprofits working to enact systemic policy change. Australia is the world’s largest coal exporter, so pushing for more ambitious policy is critical for the global fight against climate change. We focus on organisations that are directly working to advance Australian climate policy, through legislation, executive action, and regulation. We have considered organisations that use “insider” tactics such as research and policy drafting, “outsider” tactics such as grassroots activism, and communication designed to “change the story” around climate change in Australia such that climate policy is not linked to economic sacrifice. All recommended Australian policy organisations have DGR status. We are currently looking to expand our work in Australia. If you are interested in supporting or being involved, please get in touch . Anchor 1 How can Australian climate philanthropy drive global impact? Up High-Impact Climate Giving in Australia READ Deep dives into our top nonprofits Up Beyond Zero Emissions: Deep Dive READ The Superpower Institute: Deep Dive READ The Next Economy: Deep Dive READ Recommendations powered by Australian Ethical Foundation

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

We lay out our research process and the information we use to come to our conclusions on top climate nonprofits. Giving Green's Research Process // BACK Giving Green's Research Overview This report was lightly updated in October 2024, and previously updated in July 2023. Giving Green’s Research Overview Executive Summary Purpose of This Overview High-level Process Evidence Sources Data Literature External input Step 1: Identify Impact Strategies Step 2: Assess Impact Strategies Scale: How big a problem is it? Feasibility: How hard is the problem to address? Funding need: How much would more donations help? Shallow dives and deep dives Theory of change Cost-effectiveness analysis Step 3: Longlist Organizations Step 4: Evaluate Funding Opportunity Step 5: Publish Recommendations Recurring Step: Reassess Existing Recommendations Key Uncertainties Executive Summary This page is an overview of Giving Green’s current research process, which we expect to continue to update over time. We hope this increased transparency helps donors make more informed decisions, and also opens us up to additional scrutiny to improve our work. This page may be especially useful for those interested in digging into the details of our work. If you have any questions or feedback, we invite you to contact us . High-level process Giving Green’s mission is to improve human & ecological well-being by mitigating climate change. Our theory of change involves directing more funding to our recommended high-impact climate strategies to reduce climate change. We follow a five-step research process: identify impact strategies, assess impact strategies, longlist potential organizations, evaluate specific funding opportunities, and publish recommendations. Evidence sources We rely on three broad types of evidence: data (e.g., emissions, philanthropic funding), literature (e.g., academic journals, industry reports), and external input (e.g., climate researchers, policymakers). The type of evidence we use, as well as how we use it, depends on its availability and the research stage. Step 1: Identify impact strategies As a first step, we want to answer the question: What are potentially promising impact strategies? Regardless of geography or approach, we look for very rough indications that a strategy may be a promising fit for Giving Green (e.g. expected high impact of the marginal dollar). The output of this step is additions to our research prioritization dashboard. Step 2: Assess impact strategies At this stage, we move from identification to evaluation. We seek to answer the question: What is the scale, feasibility, and funding need of an impact strategy? For scale, we want to know how much a specific problem is contributing to climate change, or how much an impact strategy could reduce it. For feasibility, we want to determine an impact strategy’s likelihood of achieving success given additional philanthropy finding. And for funding need, we want to understand (a) whether climate philanthropy funding opportunities exist and (b) how much an impact strategy is constrained by philanthropic funding. At this early stage in our analysis, we use a combination of metrics and heuristics to qualitatively rank these criteria as low, medium, or high, and use these rankings to decide which impact strategies to prioritize for additional research. Shallow dives and deep dives We subsequently evaluate prioritized impact strategies at two depths: shallow dives and deep dives. These dives move beyond qualitative rankings, and also consider major co-benefits and adverse effects. At this stage in our analysis, we also introduce two analytical tools: theories of change and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). Theories of change to help us map out and assess an impact strategy’s pathway. We use CEAs as an input into our comparison of the cost-effectiveness of different strategies and organizations. Depending on the certainty of our inputs, we may use CEAs to identify or confirm important parameters, assess whether it is plausible that a donation could be highly cost-effective, and/or estimate the actual cost-effectiveness of a strategy or organization. Step 3: Longlist organizations As we focus in our analysis on a specific impact strategy, we seek to answer the question: Are there promising organizations that may have funding needs? We longlist organizations to map out the universe of funding opportunities for a given impact strategy, and roughly assess organizations based on their focus (how much it aligns with a strategy), effectiveness (whether an organization could be highly effective), and size (operational scale and potential funding need) Step 4: Evaluate funding opportunity At this stage, we seek to answer the question: Does an organization have a cost-effective theory of change with specific funding needs? For a given impact strategy, we generally evaluate three to five organizations using the same shallow and deep dive formats outlined above. After completing a deep dive, we decide whether an organization should receive a top recommendation status. Step 5: Publish recommendations At this final stage, we publish summaries of our deep dives that seek to answer the question: Why is this likely to be among the most cost-effective funding opportunities? Recurring step: Reassess existing recommendations As an ongoing step, we update our existing recommendations annually. We seek to answer the question: has anything changed about an organization or its context that would cause us to longer list it as a top recommendation? We assess implications for an organization’s scale, feasibility, and funding need, and maintain or remove our recommendation, accordingly. Key uncertainties Our research process has evolved over time, and we continue to have uncertainties about our approach. These include: whether and how we should prioritize a diversity of recommendations, how to best define and estimate changes in well-being due to climate change, an appropriate balance of research breadth versus depth, how to avoid false precision, and how to balance transparency with other considerations. Purpose of This Overview This page is an overview of our current research process, which we expect to continue to update over time. We hope this increased transparency helps donors make more informed decisions, and also opens us up to additional scrutiny to improve our work. This page may be especially useful for those interested in digging into the details of our work. This page provides a high-level overview of our current (2023) research process. Our research has continued to evolve over time, from its initial exclusive focus on carbon offsets (see Our Mistakes ) to our increased focus on reasoning transparency in 2022 . Not only does this page reflect our latest thinking, but it also represents a new level of transparency (one of our organizational values ) to help supporters understand our overall research-to-recommendation pipeline. We hope this overview accomplishes a few goals: Helps donors make more informed decisions about whether to trust Giving Green’s recommendations, which could increase donations directed by Giving Green. Helps donors in their broader (non-specific to Giving Green) climate philanthropy decisions, which could increase the cost-effectiveness of general climate philanthropy efforts. Opens us up to additional scrutiny of our research methodology, which could allow us to increase the quality and usefulness of our work. Encourages increased transparency among the broader climate philanthropy community, to allow us to collaborate and learn more from each other. This page is meant for those interested in digging into the details of our overall process, or for those curious to learn more about a specific aspect of our methodology (e.g., how we use external input ). This page is not meant to be an exhaustive explanation of our research, nor is it meant to set in stone an unchanging process. We expect to intentionally review our process on an annual basis, but generally consider this to be a live document that we may continually update. If you have any questions or feedback, we invite you to contact us . High-level Process Giving Green’s mission is to improve human & ecological well-being by mitigating climate change. To accomplish this goal, we prioritize high-impact research, conduct rigorous evaluations, and make recommendations for cost-effective climate funding opportunities [1] . Our theory of change (Figure 1) involves combining our recommendations with communication, leading to increased funding for high-impact climate strategies, lowered warming, and eventually improved human & ecological well-being. Figure 1. Giving Green's organizational theory of change At a high level, we follow a five-step research process (Figure 2): we identify impact strategies, assess impact strategies, longlist potential organizations, evaluate specific funding opportunities, and publish recommendations [2] . We explore each step in more detail below. Figure 2. Giving Green research process While this process primarily applies to how we identify our overall top recommendations , we use a similar approach for our other workstreams, such as our business recommendations and Australia recommendations . In these instances, we might introduce constraints on the landscape of opportunities (e.g., Australia-specific organizations) or approaches (e.g., business strategy decisions instead of philanthropically-funded interventions) [3] . For all our workstreams, we also strive to have a diversity of highly cost-effective recommendations that account for donor/business preferences. Though we think our target audiences are generally interested in high-impact philanthropy, we do not think their donation decisions are always uniquely driven by cost-effectiveness. We also believe there is considerable uncertainty about what are the “best” philanthropic strategies. Therefore, we think it’s important to have at least some variety in the strategies and sectors of our recommendation, even if we were to think that one strategy may be more cost-effective than others. This is in line with our organizational value of humility . Overall, we believe that even if we make some recommendations that may not be as cost-effective as others, we think this still maximizes our overall impact (see Key uncertainties). While our research process is theoretically stepwise, it is not always linear. For example, we may rule out an impact strategy if we are unsure whether any existing organizations implement this approach. For this reason, we might attempt to identify organizations working on a particular impact strategy before deeply assessing the approach. Since the specifics of our analyses also depend on varying factors such as available evidence and the nuances of individual impact strategies, this overview is necessarily limited in its depth and comprehensiveness. For details on our specific research process for different impact strategies, we invite you to review our research reports . Evidence Sources In general, we rely on three broad types of evidence to inform our research process: data, literature, and external input. Data Data types and sources vary substantially by research project, but there are generally three bodies of data we almost always use: emissions, progress, and funding. Some of the largest and most reliable data we use relates to past and current emissions. For example, we often use emissions by sector as a quick input into our assessment of scale. To inform our assessment of broader climate progress and feasibility, we reference data on climate targets, progress, and policies, e.g. Climate Action Tracker [4] . Since we are ultimately interested in optimal resource allocation across climate impact strategies, we also review data on public, private, and philanthropic spending. [5] Literature Literature reviews are a part of all our research projects, and can include both academic and non-academic evidence. When available and relevant, we use academic journal articles as a relatively important input into our research process. We rely on academic articles because they are often (but certainly not always) written by experts with deep knowledge, thoughtfully peer-reviewed as part of the publication process, and accompanied by critiques and citations that help us efficiently assess its quality. Academic articles might provide specific analysis of an impact strategy, or might also provide us with useful framing for assessing broader opportunities (e.g., Malhotra and Schmidt 2020 assesses low-carbon innovation attributes) [6] . However, academic articles are not immune to bias, and are also often less available for especially new impact strategies. Non-academic literature, such as reports, new articles, blogs, or even tweets, can be especially useful for directly applicable analysis and evidence. These literature can complement academic evidence in a few ways: broader assessments across impact strategies (e.g., Halstead 2022 ’s compilation of evidence across scientific fields), faster publication timelines (e.g., a feasibility study on novel geothermal microdistricting technology), more private sector perspectives (e.g., a McKinsey assessment of cultivated meat), and generally stronger or more uncertain statements that might be useful to consider (e.g., a Carbon Brief summary of the IPCC’s sixth assessment cycle). However, non-academic literature may also be biased, less broadly accepted/vetted, and/or less deeply researched. External input As a small team of climate researchers, we rely heavily on the expertise of others. We speak with other climate researchers, climate philanthropists, private sector representatives, policymakers, government employees, and members of civil society to guide and critique our research. As part of our commitment to our value of humility , we are especially focused on ensuring we receive a diversity of feedback, and seek to proactively engage with stakeholders who may have different or contrary views to our own. We intentionally seek to have at least one conversation with someone who we believe may disagree with our assessment, and generally sort potential contacts by affiliation (e.g., private sector), background (e.g., economist), geographic focus (e.g., US), and potential biases (e.g., topic-focused specialist) to assess external input diversity. As with our other research tools, how we use expert input largely depends on the research stage and question. In earlier-stage research prioritization, we consult with external stakeholders to gather high-level perspectives on the state of climate progress, as well as to solicit feedback on Giving Green’s overall strategy. Once our research advances to organization-specific evaluations, we primarily use external stakeholders to (a) ensure we have a comprehensive view of the ecosystem of organizations working in a space and (b) assess an organization’s effectiveness. We also have three more formal review steps. At important milestones in our overall research process (e.g., tentative recommendation), we inform some or all of our advisors and solicit general feedback. For organizations we are considering recommending, we ask them for reference checks. However, due to potential selection and response bias, we primarily use these references to learn more about specific organizational activities. And finally, for near-final drafts of especially important and/or uncertain research, we solicit a detailed review by an external researcher with expertise in the area of investigation. We think there is more progress we could make on increasing the rigor of our external input process, and plan to consider improvement opportunities in 2023 (see Future plans). Step 1: Identify Impact Strategies Our first step is to create a continually-evolving list of all philanthropic strategies that are potentially promising for future research. At first pass, we are interested in all impact strategies, regardless of geography or approach. [7] Since there are many ways to look at the same challenges or opportunities, we don’t think it’s possible to ever create a complete list of all impact strategies. For example, “avoiding deforestation” could mean saving trees, but it could also mean reducing the need for livestock grazing land. For this reason, we bring our own framing into our analysis and consider our assessment to be an ongoing process, rather than a one-time exercise to create a seemingly completely exhaustive list. At this stage, we look for very rough indications that an impact strategy may be a promising fit for Giving Green. For example, is there a sector that is a large and/or growing greenhouse gas emissions source, but receives a relatively small share of philanthropic funding (e.g., industry)? [8] If the answer is yes, that could suggest there is an opportunity for impact. [9] Or is there a nascent mitigation technology that seems stuck in a “ valley of death ” for which philanthropic funding might help? [10] The main output to this step is additions to our research prioritization dashboard. View the full dashboard as a Google Sheet here . Figure 3. A preview of our research prioritization dashboard as of July 2023 Example: From speaking with stakeholders in the climate philanthropy community, we believed efforts to decarbonize industry emissions might be relatively underfunded by philanthropy due to perceptions of low feasibility. We added this impact strategy to our dashboard to assess funding need, as well as whether feasibility might be higher than generally expected. Step 2: Assess Impact Strategies At this stage, we move from identification to evaluation. We seek to answer the question: What is the scale, feasibility, and funding need of an impact strategy? We think this step is often the most important, since it gives us adequate granularity to more confidently compare the impact potential of one strategy over another. Subsequent steps of identifying specific organizations and funding opportunities are also essential, but may be relatively less important than generally prioritizing one impact strategy over another. With so many different strategies to investigate, we run the risk of conducting overly shallow dives on many topics and accidentally deprioritizing an impactful opportunity. On the other hand, we also risk conducting overly deep dives on just a few topics, limiting our capacity to investigate other impactful opportunities. To balance these risks, we use three broad criteria to assess the promisingness of an approach: scale (how big a problem is it?), feasibility (how hard is it to address?), and funding need (how much would more donations help?). [11] For each of these indicators, we initially use a combination of metrics and heuristics to assign low/medium/high ratings for these indicators (see research prioritization dashboard ). We then use these ratings to prioritize impact strategies for additional research, which no longer relies on these qualitative rankings. See below for additional high-level commentary on each indicator. Scale: How big a problem is it? What do we want to know? At a high level, we want to determine how much a specific problem is contributing to climate change, or how much an impact strategy could reduce it. As a rough proxy for this, we estimate how much an approach could theoretically avoid greenhouse gas emissions, remove atmospheric greenhouse gasses, and/or reduce radiative forcing. Though these are intermediate effects, we use them because they are relatively easy to measure and communicate. However, we also use heuristics (see below) to prioritize strategies we think are especially likely to improve well-being, and sometimes consider ways to estimate well-being more directly. Why does scale matter? All else equal, the bigger the scale, the more we want to look into it. We can also think about scale as a hedge on the other indicators. If feasibility or funding need (see below) turn out to be lower-than-expected, bigger scale is a way to still ensure high impact relative to a smaller-scale problem with similar feasibility and funding need. How do we assess scale? Metrics: We estimate the percentage of future expected greenhouse gas emissions that could be avoided or removed by a certain strategy, or how much it would generally reduce radiative forcing through 2100. [12] Heuristics: Is this problem expected to grow or shrink? Is this problem concentrated in a country or region where this problem is generally expected to grow or shrink? Do we expect this opportunity to scale rapidly enough to significantly affect climate change within the next 75 years? Is this problem or opportunity relevant across a wide range of climate scenarios, including scenarios with relatively high suffering (roughly defined as > 4°C)? [13] How do we use our assessment to decide whether to prioritize further research? Scale matters, but we don’t think bigger is always better. For example, we think some strategies and sectors with high scale already receive substantial funding and may benefit less from a Giving Green recommendation compared to other causes we could fund. Therefore, we think scale is primarily useful for deprioritizing research into topics that seem less promising because they are not a big or likely problem or opportunity. Based on the metrics and heuristics above, we assign a simple low/medium/high qualitative ranking. [14] For strategies with a low rating, we only prioritize further research if we are especially optimistic about feasibility and funding need. What are key uncertainties or limitations to this approach? We are especially uncertain as to the value to place on reduced climate change over different time periods (see Key uncertainties). [15] Example: We estimated that industry accounts for around 29% of global greenhouse gas emissions. [16] “Industry” is a broad term that may not be fully targeted by some impact strategies. Nevertheless, we ranked its scale as high, since we believe impact strategies in this area could generally affect 5% or more of future expected greenhouse gas emissions through 2100. Some topics are also cross-cutting (e.g., clean energy) or have a highly uncertain future (e.g., specific carbon removal technologies). Feasibility: How hard is the problem to address? What do we want to know? At a high level, we want to determine an impact strategy’s likelihood of achieving scale relative to the counterfactual. Feasibility assesses how much a funding opportunity can actually contribute to solving a problem. Why does feasibility matter? Focusing resources on a problem is not useful unless it is solvable. Feasibility takes our scale assessment and fact-checks it based on practical real-life constraints. All else equal, we prioritize opportunities where there is a clear place for philanthropy to add to a strategy’s success, in order to increase the odds that aspirational impact becomes a reality. How do we assess feasibility? Metrics: We think it is unlikely we can estimate actual likelihood of success with much certainty, and therefore rely primarily on heuristics for this assessment. Heuristics: In general, how strong is the theory of change? Are there important and weak parts of the theory of change that suggest low feasibility? In general, how complicated or simple is the impact strategy? Are there organizations working on this, past examples of success, promising track records, or other pieces of evidence that suggest high feasibility? For topics without substantial precedent, is there any forward-looking or theoretical analysis that makes a strong case for future success? Does philanthropy have an important role to play in this strategy, or is it more easily supported by government or private sector stakeholders? How do we use our assessment to decide whether to prioritize further research? Based heuristics above, we assign a low/medium/high qualitative ranking. [17] For strategies with a low rating, we only prioritize further research if we are especially optimistic about scale and funding need. What are key uncertainties or limitations to this approach? As part of our initial assessment, we think this is the indicator we are most likely to get wrong, since feasibility assessments often require a deep understanding of specific nuances. If we misunderstand these nuances, we think there is a relatively high risk of creating false negatives. [18] The main way we try to mitigate this risk is by soliciting external input. In later stages, we also develop a more formal theory of change (see Theory of change) that allows us to more methodically estimate feasibility. Example: We struggled to easily and confidently the feasibility of decarbonizing heavy industry. This was partially due to highly varying impact strategies, ranging from corporate pressure campaigns to tweaking international trade regulation. [19] However, we also heard varying opinions from reports we read and key stakeholders we spoke with. On one hand, economic incentives seem to give credence to the “hard-to-decarbonize industry” nickname. [20] On the other hand, some specific impact strategies we assessed seemed highly plausible. At this early stage in our analysis, we classified this overall strategy as having medium feasibility. Funding need: How much would more donations help? What do we want to know? At a high level, we want to understand (a) whether climate philanthropy funding opportunities exist and (b) how much an impact strategy is constrained by philanthropic funding. Why does funding need matter? There are thousands of non-profit organizations with highly effective approaches. However, some of these approaches are relatively well-established and well-funded, and additional donations may be unlikely to have a major effect on future impact. On the other hand, there are also highly effective (or highly promising) impact opportunities that are not well-funded, have large growth potential, and/or could engage in higher-risk activities with more funding certainty. All else equal, we want to prioritize approaches with relatively higher funding needs. How do we assess funding need? Metric(s): Conditional on available data, we assess current philanthropic, private sector, and public sector funding to roughly understand (a) which source(s) provide funding and (b) how these funding amounts vary in size. For broader impact strategies (e.g., clean energy), we also estimate its percentage of philanthropic funding to generally understand whether it has been a major focus of philanthropic funding. [21] We also consider year-over-year changes in philanthropic spending to assess whether funding has grown or shrunk over time. Heuristics: Is there a clear role or gap that climate philanthropy is well-placed to fill? Are there specific phases of an impact strategy (e.g., RD&D) that may benefit from philanthropic funding? [22] Is this a low-interest idea that might signal funding need? [23] On the other hand, are there governments, corporations, donors, and/or organizations already allocating substantial money/resources to this? How is philanthropic funding distributed among different geographies? [24] How do we use our assessment to decide whether to prioritize further research? If we cannot identify any organizations working on an impact strategy, we deprioritize further research. (In the future we may look to help seed new organizations for promising strategies that have no one working on them.) For those remaining, we assign a qualitative low/medium/high ranking based on the metrics and heuristics above. [25] In particular, we examine relatively well-funded impact strategies to consider whether they may have relatively lower funding needs. For any topic for which we believe the funding need is low, we deprioritize further research. What are key uncertainties or limitations to this approach? Trying to determine funding need based on funding trends can be difficult and counterintuitive. For example, ClimateWorks notes that carbon removal efforts received a “sizable” funding increase in 2021. [26] This could imply that funding need is now lower since there is more philanthropic funding. However, increased philanthropic funding could also indicate even higher funding need, perhaps because philanthropic efforts play a complementary role to increased US government support for carbon removal. [27] Assessing broader funding trends can also hide niche funding opportunities with high funding needs. For example, it is our general impression that US policy advocacy work has relatively low funding need. In 2022, we nonetheless recommended Evergreen Collaborative in part because of the timely and specific funding opportunity to assist specific states to take better advantage of Inflation Reduction Act funding. [28] Because of this, we rely more heavily on heuristics than metrics, and generally have a high bar for deprioritizing impact strategies based on funding need. Example: We used ClimateWorks data to assess that industry efforts received a relatively small amount (~3%) of climate philanthropy funding. [29] However, there were also some signs that well-funded climate philanthropists (e.g., Jeff Bezos) may be ramping up funding for this impact strategy, which might reduce overall funding need. [30] In tandem with increasing focus and funding from the climate philanthropy community, we also became aware of some new early-stage funding opportunities that might have high funding need. [31] We also assessed the degree to which private sector incentives and spending might render philanthropic funding moot, but generally did not find these arguments to be overly compelling. Given all these considerations, we ranked industry decarbonization as having medium funding need. Shallow dives and deep dives For impact strategies we prioritize based on the criteria above, we subsequently evaluate them at two depths: shallow dives and deep dives. [32] These dives continue to evaluate opportunities based on scale, feasibility, and funding need, but move beyond the qualitative low/medium/high ranking we use to make early-stage research prioritizations. For example, instead of assessing general funding need, we attempt to determine how a marginal donation would actually be used, as well as what would happen in the absence of that donation. Additionally, we consider major co-benefits and adverse effects that may affect our prioritization decisionmaking. [33] We conduct many shallow dives on different impact strategies and, for the subset we continue to prioritize, deep dives to reassess in substantially more detail. While both focus on the same fundamental criteria, we start with a quicker analysis and only dig deeper if we think a strategy has a high probability of leading to a top recommendation. [34] At this stage of our analysis, we also formally introduce two analytical tools to help guide our decision-making: theories of change and cost-effectiveness analyses. Theory of change We use theories of change to help us map out and assess an impact strategy’s pathway to reducing suffering due to climate change. For a given theory of change, we focus especially on assumptions that are important for a theory of change to become reality. For each assumption, we rank whether we have low, medium, or high certainty in our assessment. Theories of change may not always be amenable to easy measurement or quantification, or supported by a robust evidence base. All else equal, we think strategies that have lengthier and/or less certain theories of change are less likely to be successfully implemented, since there are more and/or larger opportunities for an important node or link to fail. Cost-effectiveness analysis We use cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) as an input into our comparison of the cost-effectiveness of different strategies and organizations. CEAs often go hand-in-hand with theories of change, as we often consider CEAs to be a “quantified theory of change.” However, many of the opportunities we view as most promising also have highly uncertain inputs. [35] Because of this, our CEAs often primarily serve as a way to (a) identify or confirm especially important parameters that most directly determine how much a donation might reduce climate change and (b) assess whether it is plausible that a donation could be highly cost-effective. [36] For example, our decarbonizing heavy industry CEA ( explanation , model ) estimates the cost-effectiveness of advocacy efforts to secure a federal US government commitment to switch to lower-carbon cement procurement and its potential subsequent effects on global cement. Since this CEA includes highly subjective guess parameters, its estimates are highly uncertain and should not be taken literally. Instead, it helped us think through what parameters and assumptions were necessary in order for nonprofit advocacy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and whether these efforts plausibly have high cost-effectiveness. We also sometimes use CEAs to compare roughly similar climate impact strategies to determine which to prioritize. By constructing CEAs for each strategy, we can identify (a) which parameters vary and (b) whether one opportunity appears substantially more cost-effective than the other. Though we may have low confidence in our specific cost-effectiveness estimates, we may have high confidence in our assessment of the relative cost-effectiveness of one opportunity over another, and prioritize accordingly. For instance, we found this approach useful when comparing advocacy organizations in the US in the lead-up to climate legislation in 2022. [37] Example: As we initially refined our investigation, we roughly mapped out nine different strategies to decarbonize heavy industry. [38] Though there are many different industry types and decarbonization impact strategies, our general impression was that heavy industry can be decarbonized if there is (1) adequate demand for low-carbon products, (2) a supportive regulatory framework, and (3) transition assistance that facilitates a switch to low-carbon production. To further refine our thinking, we built a simple theory of change and constructed a CEA as a plausibility check of this strategy’s cost-effectiveness. [39] Step 3: Longlist Organizations Once we have identified a promising impact strategy, our investigation turns practical. We longlist organizations to map out the existing universe of funding opportunities under a given impact strategy. The specific criteria we use to add and roughly evaluate organizations varies based on what we are assessing. At this point, they are largely related to the organization’s focus. For example, we examine how closely the organization’s work aligns with the previously identified impact strategy. In some cases, an organization’s mission and operations are highly aligned with a strategy. In other cases, an organization may only be partially focused on the identified strategy, or may have a variation on the strategy we have identified. At this stage, we also mark which organizations on our long list can both accept small-dollar donations and be legally recommended by Giving Green. [40] Though it is not in line with our value of transparency, we do not publish organization longlists. We seek to be positive and collaborative members of the climate philanthropy community, and do not believe that we would substantially increase our impact by listing organizations that do not receive a top recommendation status. See Key Uncertainties for more. Example: Based primarily on desk research and external input, we developed an initial longlist of 17 organizations focused exclusively or partially on decarbonizing heavy industry. [41] Of these, we prioritized four organizations for additional investigation. [42] Step 4: Evaluate Funding Opportunities From our longlist, we select a subset of organizations for which to evaluate specific funding opportunities. Though we do not think it is useful to have a pre-specified number of opportunities we assess for a given impact strategy, we generally evaluate (at most) three to five organizations. This allows us to balance research efficiency with the desire to make comparison-based assessments within a given impact strategy. For these organizations, we follow the same shallow dive and deep dive format and analysis outlined above. We assess an organization’s theory of change to determine whether we believe it is effective in implementing a broader climate impact strategy. For example, we may believe that an organization is not well-placed to successfully advocate to industrial corporations to decarbonize, but that it will likely be effective in its advocacy to governments to procure low-carbon industrial goods. While it may fail via one theory of change pathway, its success via another suggests we may still have some confidence in its overall theory of change to decarbonize industry. In some instances, there may be organization-specific details that also allow us to construct an organization-specific CEA. For example, there may be past instances of an organization’s specific policy advocacy efforts for which we have some cost data and effect evidence. In these cases, we may attempt to construct organization-specific CEAs, though this depends on the degree to which we believe past precedent should inform our understanding of future cost-effectiveness. In cases for which this is not possible, we rely on other assessment tools, which can sometimes include higher-level CEAs of impact strategies. As noted above, we think this stage of our analysis may be less important for two reasons: (1) the majority of our impact comes from selecting highly cost-effective impact strategies and (2) it is relatively more difficult to assess specific organizations’ effectiveness. When assessing impact strategies, there may be journal articles on the topic, experts that have devoted years of thought to the question, and/or robust cost comparison data. While it is almost certainly the case that specific funding opportunities vary in cost-effectiveness, we generally think the differences between shortlisted organizations may often be relatively small and/or difficult to assess compared to differences in impact strategies’ cost-effectiveness. This is because shortlisted organizations may be relatively similar in approach, as well as the fact that our final recommendation decisions often rely on more qualitative measures that do not always enable high-confidence quantitative comparisons (e.g., key informant interviews assessing leadership effectiveness). After completing a deep dive, we decide whether an organization should receive a top recommendation status. Example: From our shortlist of four organizations focused on industry decarbonization, we removed one organization due to lack of communication response. [43] For the remaining three, we conducted shallow dives. We assessed that two of these organizations had relatively low funding need, and one of these organization’s specific impact strategies may also have had low effectiveness. [44] This caused us to conclude that the cost-effectiveness of a marginal donation to either of these organizations would likely not be within the range we would consider for a top recommendation. [45] Our initial shallow dive of Industrious Lab suggested that it could be highly promising, and our deep dive analysis confirmed our prior thinking. Our deep dive helped us also identify some key uncertainties in our assessment. Ultimately, we decided to select Industrious Labs as a top recommendation. Step 5: Publish Recommendations At this final stage, we publish summaries of our deep dives that seek to answer the question: Why is this likely to be among the most cost-effective funding opportunities? Recommendations do not contain additional information beyond what we’ve included in our funding opportunity deep dives. Instead, they serve as summaries that explain the fundamental reasons why we believe a specific funding opportunity is highly cost-effective, and why we are especially excited to classify it as a top recommendation. Example: We published our Industrious Labs recommendation in November 2022. Recurring Step: Reassess Existing Recommendations As an ongoing step, we update our existing recommendations annually. We seek to answer the question: has anything changed about an organization or its context that would cause us to longer list it as a top recommendation? We assess implications for an organization’s scale, feasibility, and funding need, and maintain or remove our recommendation, accordingly. We update our list of recommended nonprofits annually. As a heuristic, more recent recommendations receive a light-touch update whereas older recommendations (two or more years since our last major update) receive more in-depth updates. In our reassessments, we explore what’s changed about the organization and its impact strategy context since our last review, and we consider perspectives and resources we may have overlooked. Questions we consider include: Have there been organizational or contextual changes that cause us to be less (or more) confident of an organization’s theory of change? How effectively has the organization used Giving Green-directed funds so far? With this information, how well do we think the organization can use Giving Green-directed funds in the future? Does it seem harder or easier for this impact strategy to attract funding without a Giving Green recommendation? We decide whether to maintain a recommendation based on our updated assessments of the organization’s scale, feasibility, and funding need. Example: We have not yet reassessed our investigations of Industrious Labs or the general impact strategy of decarbonizing heavy industry. Since Industrious Labs is a relatively young and fast-growing organization, we expect our reassessment to primarily focus on funding need and evidence of effectiveness. For decarbonizing heavy industry, in general, we plan to assess whether philanthropic or government funding for this strategy has increased substantially, which may suggest lower funding need than previously. Key Uncertainties Our research process has evolved over time, and we continue to have uncertainties about our approach. These include: whether and how we should prioritize a diversity of recommendations, how to best define and estimate suffering due to climate change, an appropriate balance of research breadth versus depth, how to avoid false precision, and how to balance transparency with other considerations. Our research process has evolved over time, and we expect to continue to make changes as we grow and mature in our analytical approach. We have made some mistakes , and continue to have uncertainties about our current process. See below for some of our key uncertainties. Diversity of recommendations Our theory of change accounts for the preferences of our target audiences, which means that the diversity and number of our research and recommendations are affected by our target audiences. For example, part of our motivation for prioritizing research into deforestation was due to our impression that forests attract a relatively large amount of philanthropic funding. [46] If our target audience has strongly held preferences for donating to forest-based mitigation efforts, it could be the case that a recommendation linked to reducing deforestation might ultimately influence more funds and have more impact than a lower-preference recommendation, even if the lower-preference recommendation is technically more cost-effective. [47] It may also be the case that having high-interest research/recommendations provides an entry-point to crowd in additional funding to initially lower-interest recommendations. [48] Finally, we also think that fewer recommendations may make sense from a behavioral perspective, in order to reduce analysis paralysis that could cause would-be donors to not give. Since our own reasoning is based primarily on theory and qualitative target audience feedback, we may conduct more research on this in the future to inform our understanding. [49] We may also consider ways in which our Giving Green fund, formally launched in 2023, allows us to adopt new funding channels (e.g., direct grantmaking, requests for proposals, new organization seed funding, etc.). Defining and estimating suffering due to climate change Our mission is to improve human & ecological well-being by mitigating climate change. However, this is difficult to define and analyze, so we often use atmospheric greenhouse gas levels or radiative forcing over different time periods as a rough proxy. We also use heuristics to prioritize mitigation efforts that we think will be relevant in high-suffering scenarios. We think this is an imperfect process, and is especially relevant when comparing funding opportunities for (a) near-term climate pollutants (e.g., methane) versus (longer-lived) CO2, (b) short permanence vs long permanence interventions (e.g., enhanced soil carbon management versus Climeworks direct air capture ), and (c) near-term reductions versus future reductions (e.g., immediate carbon removal versus policy advocacy for nuclear fusion research). [50] This uncertainty varies in importance across our research, so we plan to continue to consider ways to improve and refine this on a case-by-case basis. We may also spend more time generally trying to improve our estimate of suffering or well-being due to climate change, but do not expect this to be a major research focus for 2023. Balancing research breadth versus depth We face an extraordinarily broad field of potential opportunities to investigate. At each stage of our research process, we must balance breadth and depth in an effort to assess a wide array of opportunities with a high degree of rigor. We are uncertain whether we are striking the right balance, and plan to continue assessing this based on our research capacity and the opportunity landscape. Avoiding false precision Truth-seeking and transparency are two of our organizational values that drive us to have high reasoning transparency in all our work. However, we have historically struggled with how to (a) share the full depth of reasoning that goes into our research process and (b) communicate the degree of confidence we place in various statements and tools. For example, our CEAs are highly quantitative tools. For some of our assessments, we ultimately decide to not place much weight or confidence in them, and state as much. [51] We think this may still be confusing for some readers, and could be interpreted as false precision. For all of our research, and especially for highly quantitative analytical techniques such as CEAs, we are uncertain how to best practice high reasoning transparency while avoiding false precision. We plan to continue to experiment with different techniques to avoid false precision. [52] Balancing transparency with other considerations As a heuristic and value , we aim to be highly transparent in all our work. However, we think there are three reasons we are not fully transparent: confidentiality, research capacity, and positive collaboration: Confidentiality: As part of our research process, we sometimes have the opportunity to receive confidential data or speak with stakeholders who request off-the-record conversations. In these instances, our first priority is to respect confidentiality. While we wish we were always in a position to share any information we receive, we think this tradeoff is probably worth it. We have found confidential information to be quite useful, as it can provide back-end direction and insight that directly informs our research and reasoning. Research capacity: We are a small team with limited capacity to conduct a large amount of research. In its early stages, our research can be tentative, confusing, or just plain wrong. To make this research high-enough quality to make it easily and accurately interpretable would require substantial time that we think is better spent on decision-relevant research. However, we also want to be transparent about our overall process. To balance this, we publish a high-level research prioritization dashboard , (even if we do not always publish the extent of our prioritization reasoning), as well as shallow or deep dives on impact strategies we ultimately decide to not prioritize. Positive collaboration: As mentioned below, we do not publish a list of organizations we have assessed and decided to not classify as a top recommendation. We do this to balance transparency with two of our other values : collaboration and humility. We seek to be positive members of the climate philanthropy community, and believe that making the case for top recommendations is more impactful and more in line with our values than highlighting organizations that, though they may be quite effective, do not ultimately receive a top recommendation status. We are unsure whether we have always made appropriate transparency tradeoff decisions. Though increased research capacity would allow us to practice higher transparency, we think we will continue to balance concerns of confidentiality and positive collaboration. Endnotes [1] For more on our organizational strategy and processes, see How Giving Green Works | Our Mission . We loosely define “cost-effective” in terms of high scale, feasibility, and funding need (see below). We more formally define “cost-effective” as how much an additional dollar in philanthropic funding could avoid greenhouse gas emissions, remove atmospheric greenhouse gases, and/or reduce an equivalent amount of radiative forcing. For example, as a benchmark for our top recommendations, we consider an opportunity if its estimated cost-effectiveness is plausibly within an order of magnitude of $1/tCO2e avoided or removed (i.e., less than $10/tCO2e). See Key uncertainties for additional commentary on this proxy estimate and benchmark. [2] For more on our research, see Climate change mitigation strategies research | Giving Green . For recommendations, see Give to high-impact climate nonprofits | Giving Green . [3] For more on our Australia research process, see Research Process and Prioritization | Giving Green . For recommendations, see Australian Climate Policy, Our recommended organization | Giving Green . For our business strategy decisions, see How to Think Beyond Net Zero | Giving Green . [4] Though we review climate targets and policies to roughly assess progress, we don’t necessarily place value on whether or not an impact strategy is “on track” or not according to a specific target. This is because we believe many targets are developed to serve as useful political and aspirational tools and goals. [5] For example, we review Climateworks Funding Trends 2022 as one input into our assessment of philanthropic spending. [6] “We also draw on complexity theory, evolutionary economics, and cybernetic theory to develop a technology typology that helps explain systematic differences in technologies’ experience rates by distinguishing between technologies on the basis of (1) their design complexity and (2) the extent to which they need to be customized.” Malhotra and Schmidt 2020 . [7] We think that limiting our initial universe of options by geography or approach might exclude highly cost-effective impact strategies for arbitrary reasons. However, at later stages we may use these sorts of criteria to help us prioritize certain research opportunities over others. We also consider the comparative advantages of our staff to efficiently and effectively conduct research. For example, since the common language among our staff is English, we may find it difficult to assess opportunities in certain geographies. [8] We roughly estimate that industry accounts for 29% of global greenhouse gas emissions and receives around 3% of climate philanthropic funding from foundations. Industry greenhouse gas emissions: ~29% (2016). See Emissions by sector - Our World in Data , “Global greenhouse gas emissions by sector” figure, industry + energy use in industry. Philanthropic funding focused on industry: ~3% (annual average, 2017-2021). See Climateworks Funding Trends 2022 , figure 4. Calculation: $55M / $1.7B = 3%. [9] On the other hand, this could also suggest a hypothetical scenario in which philanthropic funding is less useful, perhaps because private sector incentives are well-aligned to make progress on climate change impact strategies. [10] For example, philanthropic funding could support a non-profit to advocate for increased government spending on early-stage R&D, demonstration sites, etc. [11] We developed these indicators by generally speaking with different climate researchers and philanthropists about their assessment/funding criteria, as well as reviewing publicly available frameworks such as Holden Karnofsky’s 2013 Importance, Tractability, and Neglectedness (ITN) framework , MacAskill et al 2022 ’s Significance, Persistence, and Contingency framework, and GiveWell’s research criteria . We do not adopt these specific terminologies because (1) they have formal and varied formulas that we do not use and (2) we think our terminology may be more easily interpretable by a broader audience. [12] We think the future of climate change is difficult to predict, and it is our general impression that there is fairly large disagreement and uncertainty over a wide range of future climate scenarios. We use a 2100 timeline to very roughly balance two broad scenarios: (1) mitigation efforts are relatively successful, and suffering due to climate change is concentrated through 2100; (2) mitigation efforts are relatively unsuccessful, and suffering due to climate change increases over time, including beyond 2100. We are highly uncertain about the future of climate change, but broadly think scenario 1 is more likely and would cause less suffering than scenario 2. We think this based on a medium-depth review of the available literature, as well as speaking with various climate scientists and generalist forecasters. For example: “Assessment of current policies suggests that the world is on course for around 3 °C of warming above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century — still a catastrophic outcome, but a long way from 5 °C” Source: Hausfather and Peters 2020 ; “warming can be kept just below 2 degrees Celsius if all conditional and unconditional pledges are implemented in full and on time. Peak warming could be limited to 1.9–2.0 degrees Celsius (5%–95% range 1.4–2.8 °C) in the full implementation case—building on a probabilistic characterization of Earth system uncertainties in line with the Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report6 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” Source: Meinshausen et al 2022 . To compare the effects of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions to CO2 emissions, we use a 75-year global warming potential (GWP). This allows us to roughly estimate the amount of energy the emissions of 1 ton of a non-CO2 greenhouse gas will absorb through 2100. For additional background on GWP, see Understanding Global Warming Potentials | US EPA . We believe GWP is an imperfect approach to assessing global temperature effects, as well as suffering due to climate change. For example, see Allen et al 2018 (“Using conventional Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) to convert [short-lived climate pollutants] to ‘CO2-equivalent’ emissions misrepresents their impact on global temperature”). We use GWP75 because it is relatively simple to calculate and communicate, and because we believe our heuristics help us address two of the main flaws of GWP: GWP does not account for (1) varying potency within a given time period and (2) any potential effects beyond the GWP duration. Our heuristic, “is this problem or opportunity relevant across a wide range of climate scenarios, including scenarios with relatively high suffering?” is meant to downgrade mitigation efforts that are less likely to apply in longer-term (2100+) scenarios with relatively high suffering. In practice, we think these mitigation efforts are primarily limited to (a) single-instance reductions in near-term term climate pollutants (e.g., methane) and (b) CO2 removal with less than 100-year permanence. [13] We think the future of climate change is difficult to predict, and it is our general impression that there is fairly large disagreement and uncertainty over a wide range of future climate scenarios. For example, the IPCC outlines five Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP), but does not make claims as to the likelihood of different scenarios occurring (Source: “...the developers of the SSPs make no claim as to the relative likelihood of any scenario coming to pass.” Explainer: How ‘Shared Socioeconomic Pathways’ explore future climate change - Carbon Brief ). Another major uncertainty is the degree to which “tipping elements” (“conditions beyond which changes in a part of the climate system become self-perpetuating. These changes may lead to abrupt, irreversible, and dangerous impacts with serious implications for humanity” Source: McKay et al 2022 ) exist and/or are likely to occur. All else equal, we think that impact strategies that remain relevant across a wide range of scenarios have a greater likelihood of reducing the most suffering due to climate change. Strategies that apply to worser-case scenarios may be especially impactful, since we think reducing climate change in worser-case scenarios will reduce relatively more suffering than similar efforts in better-case scenarios. For example, we think that avoiding a 0.5 °C global temperature increase from 1.5 °C to 2.0 °C will reduce relatively less suffering than avoiding a similar temperature increase from 2.5 °C to 3.0 °C. However, given uncertainties across different climate change scenarios and what we believe to be a moderate likelihood that we do not encounter worser-case scenarios (for example, “Assessment of current policies suggests that the world is on course for around 3 °C of warming above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century — still a catastrophic outcome, but a long way from 5 °C” Source: Hausfather and Peters 2020 ; “ warming can be kept just below 2 degrees Celsius if all conditional and unconditional pledges are implemented in full and on time. Peak warming could be limited to 1.9–2.0 degrees Celsius (5%–95% range 1.4–2.8 °C) in the full implementation case—building on a probabilistic characterization of Earth system uncertainties in line with the Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report6 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” Source: Meinshausen et al 2022 ). [14] Though this ranking is qualitative to allow for high degrees of uncertainty in our initial assessments, we think scale is generally a criteria for which we can ultimately have a relatively quantifiable metric. We generally consider scale to be low if we believe the problem or opportunity could affect less than 2% of future expected greenhouse gas emissions through 2100, medium for 2% to 5%, and high for greater than 5%. [15] Time frame is important when thinking about scale because (1) different greenhouse gases have different atmospheric lifetimes, (2) different interventions have varying levels of permanence, and (3) time frame impacts whether we prioritize mature ready-to-scale technologies over emerging technologies. For example, prioritizing a longer time frame may favor strategies that focus on permanently removing longer-lived climate pollutants (e.g., some direct air capture projects ) over single-instance avoidance of near-term (sometimes referred to as “short-lived”) climate pollutant emissions (e.g., refrigerant destruction ). See section Key uncertainties , Defining and estimating suffering due to climate change, for additional commentary. [16] Industry greenhouse gas emissions: ~29% (2016). See Emissions by sector - Our World in Data , “Global greenhouse gas emissions by sector” figure, industry + energy use in industry [17] We describe our assessment 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 we think a strategy can, on average, be successful. Low = 0-60%, medium = 60-80%, high = 80-100%. [18] We are more concerned about false negatives than false positives during our initial assessment. Namely, we can catch false positives at later stages in our analysis whereas false negatives drop out of consideration, meaning we’ve lost the ability to rectify our mistake. [19] See Decarbonizing Heavy Industry | Giving Green for additional detail [20] “Energy-intensive industries (EIIs) produce basic materials, such as steel, petrochemicals, aluminum, cement, and fertilizers, that are responsible for around 22 percent of global CO2 emissions (Bataille 2019).” Unlocking the “Hard to Abate” Sectors | World Resources Institute . [21] For example, industry accounts for 29% of global greenhouse gas emissions and receives around 3% of climate philanthropic funding from foundations. Industry greenhouse gas emissions: ~29% (2016). See Emissions by sector - Our World in Data , “Global greenhouse gas emissions by sector” figure, industry + energy use in industry. Philanthropic funding focused on industry: ~3% (annual average, 2017-2021). See Climateworks Funding Trends 2022 , figure 4. Calculation: $55M / $1.7B = 3%. This might suggest that industry has a relatively high philanthropic funding need, since its percentage of philanthropic funding is lower than that of its emissions. This is a very rough heuristic, as there could be many other factors that mean this is not the case (e.g., limited philanthropic funding opportunities). [22] For example, see Climate Tech’s Four Valleys of Death and Why We Must Build a Bridge . [23] An approach might be low-interest due to relatively low scale or feasibility. It may also be low-interest due to a limited evidence base, minimal track record, political sensitivity, or lack of private sector incentives. [24] For example, see Climateworks Funding Trends 2022 , figure 4. From 2017-2021, Indonesia received an annual average of $25M in philanthropic funding, around 2% of country-specific funding (calculation: $25M / ($1.7B - $505M) = 2%. However, it is the world’s fifth largest emitter, equivalent to ~4% of global greenhouse gas emissions (see WRI: Indonesia Climate Change Data 2019 ). This might suggest that Indonesia has a relatively high philanthropic funding need, since its percentage of philanthropic funding is lower than that of its emissions. This is a very rough heuristic, as there could be many other factors that mean this is not the case (e.g., limited philanthropic funding opportunities). [25] We describe our assessment 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 a climate philanthropy funding need is within the range we would consider for a top recommendation. Low = 0-60%, medium = 60-80%, high = 80-100%. [26] “2021 saw sizable [philanthropic] funding increases for forests and carbon dioxide removal.” Climateworks Funding Trends 2022 . [27] “In the last year, the federal government has committed to spend more than $580 billion to combat climate change through the passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Within this $580 billion, there is significant funding supporting development and deployment of carbon dioxide removal…” WRI: Carbon Removal in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act, 2022 . [28] “Following the 2022 passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), Evergreen Collaborative is now planning to work on implementing bills and state-level policy…” Evergreen Collaborative: Deep Dive | Giving Green . [29] Philanthropic funding focused on industry: ~3% (annual average, 2017-2021). See Climateworks Funding Trends 2022 , figure 4. Calculation: $55M / $1.7B = 3%. This might suggest that industry has a relatively high philanthropic funding need, since its percentage of philanthropic funding is lower than that of its emissions. This is a very rough heuristic, as there could be many other factors that mean this is not the case (e.g., limited philanthropic funding opportunities). [30] Bezos Earth Fund: The Bezos Earth Fund made its first grants to “Decarbonizing the Economy” in November 2020. “Bezos Earth Fund, Our Programs” n.d. Example of Bezos Earth Fund grant: “Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) today announced that it has received a $10 million grant from the Bezos Earth Fund to help significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in both U.S. buildings and in energy-intensive industrial and transport sectors.” " RMI Awarded $10 Million from The Bezos Earth Fund to Accelerate Decarbonization of Buildings and Industry " 2020. Microsoft Climate Innovation Fund: “We’ll focus on areas such as direct carbon removal, digital optimization, advanced energy systems, industrial materials, circular economy, water technologies, sustainable agriculture, and business strategies for nature-based markets.” " Climate Innovation Fund " n.d. Giving Green note: We note that ClimateWorks Foundation’s reported annual average spending may have increased simply because ClimateWorks learned of more foundations already donating to decarbonizing heavy industry. However, we do not think this is the case. [31] One of these opportunities eventually received a top recommendation status. See Industrious Labs: Deep Dive | Giving Green for additional details. [32] See Climate change mitigation strategies research | Giving Green for our shallow and deep dives. [33] In general, we are most focused on climate benefits and our decision making does not typically place substantial weight on co-benefits (benefits not directly related to climate). However, there are instances in which a co-benefit may (a) attract additional funding (e.g., Good Food Institute’s work may also have positive animal welfare effects ) and/or (b) reduce suffering due to climate change in ways unrelated to greenhouse gases (e.g., BURN stoves allow households to reduce spending on cooking charcoal ). In these cases, we think it is useful to consider and highlight co-benefits. For adverse effects, we believe there are many highly cost-effective impact strategies that do not have substantial adverse effects. Therefore, we deprioritize strategies that we think might have large and/or inequitably shared adverse effects. [34] 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 = 60-80%, high = 80-100%. [35] We think this is most likely the case for two main reasons: (1) many climate funders explicitly or implicitly value certainty in their giving decisions, so this means less-certain funding opportunities are relatively underfunded; and (2) we think some of the most promising pathways to scale (e.g., policy influence and technology innovation) are also inherently difficult to assess due to their long and complicated causal paths. [36] We use rough benchmarks as a way to compare the cost-effectiveness of different giving opportunities. As a benchmark for our top recommendations, we consider an opportunity if its estimated cost-effectiveness is plausibly within an order of magnitude of $1/tCO2e avoided or removed (i.e., less than $10/tCO2e). [37] See Activism: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis | Giving Green for additional explanation. [38] See Decarbonizing Heavy Industry | Giving Green , Table 1. Though our initial assessment was more informal, this table encapsulates the different strategies we generally considered. [39] Theory of change: See Decarbonizing Heavy Industry | Giving Green , “Theory of change for decarbonizing heavy industry”. CEA: See Decarbonizing Heavy Industry | Giving Green , “What is the cost-effectiveness of decarbonizing heavy industry?”. [40] Giving Green is part of IDinsight Inc., which is itself a charitable, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization. Our 501(c)(3) status precludes us from supporting or opposing political campaign activities and engaging in extensive lobbying. [41] Redacted, see “Key uncertainties” section, “Balancing transparency with other considerations” topic for additional commentary. [42] Redacted, see “Key uncertainties” section, “Balancing transparency with other considerations” topic for additional commentary. [43] Redacted, see “Key uncertainties” section, “Balancing transparency with other considerations” topic for additional commentary. [44] Redacted, see “Key uncertainties” section, “Balancing transparency with other considerations” topic for additional commentary. [45] We use rough benchmarks as a way to compare the cost-effectiveness of different giving opportunities. As a benchmark for our top recommendations, we consider an opportunity if its estimated cost-effectiveness is plausibly within an order of magnitude of $1/tCO2e avoided or removed (i.e., less than $10/tCO2e). [46] For example, see Climateworks Funding Trends 2022 , figure 4. From 2017-2021, “forests” received an annual average of $140M in philanthropic funding, around 8% of overall funding (calculation: $140M / $1.7B = 8%. [47] As a thought experiment, consider a hypothetical scenario where a donor has a strong preference for forest-based mitigation efforts. If we make a forest recommendation that can avoid emissions for $10 per tCO2e, the donor will donate $100, resulting in 10 tCO2e avoided. If we make a non-forest recommendation that can avoid emissions for $5 per tCO2e, the donor will donate $10, resulting in 2 tCO2e avoided. Thus, making a forest recommendation results in more tCO2e avoided, even if the non-forest recommendation is technically twice as cost-effective. To guard against making recommendations that vary dramatically in cost-effectiveness, we use rough benchmarks. For our top recommendations, we consider an opportunity if its estimated cost-effectiveness is plausibly within an order of magnitude of $1/tCO2e avoided or removed (i.e., less than $10/tCO2e). [48] For example, GiveDirectly (an unconditional cash transfer non-profit organization) believes that its launch of a U.S.-specific COVID-19 response also helped it draw in more funding for its international work. We have not investigated this claim in detail, but believe it is a reasonable and plausible inference. “In April 2020, we launched Project 100, a U.S. COVID-19 response…For the past decade, our core mission has been to reach people living in extreme poverty. While many millions in the United States are in poverty, they’re typically not facing extreme poverty as it is officially defined (living below $1.90/day)...We’ve driven over $70M to international programs from donors who initially gave to U.S. projects — more than our revenue for any year before 2020.” Working in the U.S. helped us get more money to international recipients | GiveDirectly . [49] For example, we may look more closely at web traffic, donor data, and/or solicit target audience feedback. [50] “[Near-term (also referred to as short-lived) climate pollutants] persist for a short time in the atmosphere but can be extremely potent in terms of their global warming potential compared to long-lasting greenhouse gases such as CO2.” World Bank: Short-Lived Climate Pollutants, 2014 . [51] For example: “This CEA includes highly subjective guess parameters and should not be taken literally. In particular, we estimated the change in likelihood that advanced reactors would move from a low- to a high-innovation scenario due to advocacy efforts, the change in that probability that could be attributed to nonprofits, and the number of years that advocacy moves a high-innovation scenario forward compared to the counterfactual. We have low confidence in the ability of our CEA to estimate the cost-effectiveness of NGOs’ US policy advocacy, community engagement, and technical assistance but view it as a slight positive input into our overall assessment of supporting advanced reactors.” Nuclear Power | Giving Green . [5 2] For example, we may reduce the complexity of our CEAs, since complexity can sometimes be associated with false precision. We may instead publish fewer full-length CEAs and more simplified BOTECs (“back of the envelope” calculations), even if we used more complex CEAs to inform our research.

Read Giving Green's deep dive research into nuclear power and its viability as a climate mitigation strategy. Nuclear Power // BACK This report was last updated in October 2024. Download the report: Nuclear Power .pdf Download PDF • 971KB Executive summary What is nuclear power? Nuclear energy is released from the core of an atom and can be harnessed for electricity generation or heat. Nuclear power accounts for around 10 percent of the global electricity supply. Recently, there has been increased focus on advanced nuclear fission reactors that are designed to be safer and cheaper than traditional large light-water reactors. How could nuclear power reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Nuclear power can reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions if it replaces or avoids carbon-emitting energy sources. We think the most promising and large-scale GHG reduction opportunity comes from nuclear power’s ability to complement renewable energy sources by providing a steady source of electricity regardless of seasonal or environmental factors. As a dispatchable power source, nuclear power can also provide reliable energy, short-term flexibility, and enough capacity to meet high demand when needed. Additionally, some types of advanced nuclear reactors have use cases that can help decarbonize hard-to-abate sectors. Theory of change: US nonprofits have supported advanced nuclear reactor research, development, and deployment (RD&D) through domestic- and export-focused policy advocacy, community engagement, and licensing reform. These inputs can help derisk nuclear projects, establish a more predictable path for licensing, increase federal funding and support, and decrease community opposition to nuclear projects. We think these factors influence whether companies can profitably scale advanced nuclear reactors. A successful deployment model in the US and reduced costs could have international spillover effects, such as through technology transfer, exports, and leasing. What is nuclear power’s cost-effectiveness? We developed a highly subjective rough-guess cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to estimate the costs and effects of nonprofits’ efforts on increasing advanced nuclear reactor deployment. We have low confidence in this CEA and do not think it should be taken literally, but generally view it as a slight positive input to our overall assessment of nuclear power. Is there room for more funding? We think nonprofit advocacy for nuclear power is relatively neglected when contextualized against the greater environmental movement and has room for more funding. Are there major co-benefits or potential risks? Nuclear power is the least land-intensive source of electricity production. Also, per unit of electricity generated, nuclear power is safer than fossil fuels and as safe as wind and solar. Potential risks include nuclear waste disposal, environmental and procedural justice concerns, and potential safety and nuclear proliferation risks. Key uncertainties and open questions: The future cost-competitiveness of advanced nuclear reactors is uncertain, and nuclear power may not be a large part of a future carbon-free energy mix. We think there are also some open questions about where to best direct philanthropic funds to support advanced nuclear reactors (e.g., innovation in the US versus other countries). Bottom line / next steps: Although there is substantial uncertainty on advanced nuclear reactors’ future costs, we see value in supporting nuclear power as a way to diversify energy portfolios given the mix of advantages and disadvantages that different sources of electricity production provide. We also think advanced nuclear reactors have value propositions outside the electrical grid, such as heat and hydrogen production for decarbonizing heavy industry. Our theory of change rests on supporting an ecosystem of nonprofits working on policies supporting advanced nuclear reactor innovation in the US, given that the US is important for designing and demonstrating these technologies before they are exported elsewhere.

Giving Green recommended the Mash Makes Maharashtra Model as one of the top carbon removal opportunities for businesses in 2022. MASH Makes // BACK This recommendation was last updated in November 2022. It may no longer be accurate, both with respect to the evidence it presents and our assessment of the evidence. We do not have plans to update this recommendation in the foreseeable future as we have paused our work assessing direct carbon removal and offset projects. 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 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 Mash Makes specifically for businesses given its more direct alignment with corporate net-zero ambitions. We believe Mash Makes 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 Overview of Mash Makes Mechanism Causality Project Additionality Marginal Additionality Permanence Co-Benefits Cost-Effectiveness Conclusion How to contribute to Mash Makes Summary Giving Green recommends the Mash Makes Maharashtra Model as one of the top carbon removal opportunities for businesses. 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 w orking 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. Overview of Mash Makes Mash Makes is an Indo-Danish carbon-negative energy company. It began as a project at the Technological University of Denmark, converting waste streams (primarily waste agricultural residues and woody biomass) into energy products (biofuel, hydrogen, and electricity) and biochar, a natural by-product. The promising results of this work led to the funding of a company to commercialize the technology. Mash Make s now 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. [1] Applying biochar to soil securely stores the carbon that plants have removed from the atmosphere with medium-term permanence, preventing carbon emissions and air pollution. Mash Makes does this through the use of Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) units, the fundamental unit of which is Mash Make’s pyrolysis machine. This machine features a unique heat principle that enables efficient feedstock heating by only using residual pyro-gas produced as a byproduct of the process. Feedstock is fed into a pyrolysis unit and heated at temperatures of 550°C in the absence of oxygen to produce biochar, which stores carbon in a more stable form more than the original biomass. Each SPV will consist of at least four such pyrolysis units containing Mash Makes technology tailored t o the local supply chain energy needs and feedstock availability. [2] Mash Makes intends to utilize a modular franchise model by rolling out a series of SPVs; efforts are currently focused in India, though other areas in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa are under consideration. [3] Mash Makes biochar is certified by the European Biochar Certificate. Figure 1. Modular pyrolysis machine designed by Mash Makes Figure 2. Representation of upcoming commercial Mash Makes facility for launch in 2023 Mechanism Removed emissions. Giving Green views the biochar production process as emissions removal. As crops grow, they draw carbon out of the atmosphere and store it in their biomass. Mash Makes intercepts the residue of this biomass material post-harvest, converting it into biochar before it can re-emit the stored carbon back into the atmosphere. This cycle is a carbon-negative process, resulting in less carbon in the atmosphere overall. We acknowledge that the line between removed and avoided carbon emissions can be a gray area. Some evaluations do not consider crop growth part of the biochar product cycle unless organizations grow it themselves, or they view biochar as an imperfect form of carbon removal due to its impermanence. Considering these views, we assess the biochar produced by Mash Makes to be a medium-permanence emissions removal project. Causality High causality. Biochar uses post-harvest agricultural biomass residues (feedstock). These would have often been left to decompose, but can also be burnt or put to alternative uses. The dry weight of biochar is easily measured before and after burning to determine fixed carbon content. [4] A high fixed carbon content translates to efficient feedstock use for carbon storage, showing a large proportion of feedstock is converted into stable carbon rather than ash or volatile compounds. Mash Makes biochar has a fixed carbon content of 84.9%. We believe that almost all of the carbon stored in the feedstock used by Mash Makes would be released into the atmosphere within a short amount of time if it weren’t converted to biochar. If the feedstock is left in the field, 20% of the carbon from plant biomass is stored over a 5-10 year period. [5] More likely, it would be burned, converting the carbon into CO 2 right away as the soil only retains 3% of carbon during crop burning. Karnataka state, the location of Mash Makes’ first commercial facility, has one of the highest rates of crop residue burning in India. [6] In other cases, organizations could purchase feedstock before it is burnt, putting it towards alternative uses such as biofuel, paper-based or packing materials, or animal feed. [7] However, these products will all re-release their carbon as they are used or discarded and so are carbon-neutral processes at best. Project Additionality Medium project additionality. Project-level additionality seeks to answer the following question: would Mash Makes exist and sell biochar in the absence of offsets? We rate the additionality of Mash Makes as medium. Mash Makes wants to keep the prices of its biochar as low as possible, depending upon the funds produced from the sale of carbon removal certificates, to keep operations feasible. Mash Makes currently sells its biochar at below-market prices (<$0.1/kg) to NGO afforestation or reforestation projects, with the sale price set to recover transport costs only. Producing 323kg of Mash Makes biochar will remove one ton of CO 2 equivalent, meaning that biochar sales / transport costs are equivalent to roughly 20% of the price of a credit. It is our impression that this cost recovery does not substantially reduce the additionality of offsets. Further, it provides biochar to farmers for free to participate in field trials. Mash Makes uses a modular franchise model to expand the number of SPVs, with investors funding individual SPVs that use the Mash Makes technology. To ensure the model attracts investor interest, bio-oil (a byproduct of the pyrolysis process) is sold at market rate as a carbon-neutral fuel source to shipping and transportation operators, with profits returning to investors. [8] We are comfortable with this aspect of Mash Makes operations, as (i) Mash Makes told us the model still depends on carbon credits to be feasible, (ii) Mash Makes does not directly profit from this, (iii) this increases the rate at which Mash Makes can expand, leading to the removal of more carbon, and (iv) the bio-oil replaces carbon-intensive fossil fuel use, assisting with industry decarbonization. [9] If project products generate profit, this can decrease our confidence in whether projects need carbon credits to operate, calling additionality into question. However, Mash Makes told us that carbon credits are a vital part of its operations and that it aims to keep its biochar prices as low as possible while selling bio-oil to expand. Marginal Additionality High marginal additionality. Marginal additionality ensures that each credit purchase goes towards removing additional greenhouse gas emissions, rather than generating profit. We also rate the marginal additionality of Mash Makes as high. As Mash Makes is a for-profit company, there could be concerns about carbon credit revenue generating profit rather than sequestering additional carbon. However, Mash Makes aims to be a business for impact, using a profitable business model to attract investors and remove carbon at a pace it believes would not be possible as a non-profit. [10] As the revenue from carbon credits goes towards operational costs and assisting with expansion, leading to additional carbon sequestration, we feel confident in the additionality claims of Mash Makes. [11] The modular design of Mash Makes’s SPVs allows for the quick and efficient setup of facilities near biomass residues that commercial operators would typically be unable to reach, also reducing costs associated with the transport of the feedstock. This also creates higher confidence in additionality, as rural feedstock is less likely to be accessible for other climate-related purposes. Permanence Medium permanence. The biochar produced through pyrolysis is more stable than the original feedstock. However, biochar permanence can be highly variable depending upon the feedstock type and pyrolysis temperature, which influence biochar characteristics, and the post-production conditions, which impact how quickly biochar will degrade. Mash Makes biochar has an oxygen-to-organic carbon ratio of 0.056, a hydrogen-to-organic carbon ratio of 0.4, and pyrolysis production temperatures of 550°C. Mash Makes biochar feedstock is currently primarily agricultural residues such as nutshells, but it may expand to other feedstocks in the future. [12] Due to these characteristics, we estimate the theoretical quality of Mash Makes biochar to be extremely high, with a >1000-year half-life under laboratory conditions. [13] MASH Makes recommends that its biochar is first mixed with compost, manure or an organic fertilizer before it is applied to the soil. This ensures that the biochar forms a stable sink and no biochar is lost to wind erosion. Research has shown that laboratory estimates are relatively accurate in temperate climates, but there is less confidence in the accuracy of laboratory estimates in tropical or subtropical areas. [14] At the moment, Mash Makes primarily operates in India, which has a tropical semi-arid climate. Differences are likely to be greatest between laboratory estimates and field results where low-quality biochar contains high amounts of unstable carbon, as it is unstable carbon that will be primarily affected by post-production conditions. For example, one study found that only biochar produced at pyrolysis temperatures >550°C could persist for >100 years in high soil temperatures of 40°C - 60°C. [15] Due to this, we think it is unlikely that the >1000-year half-life of Mash Makes biochar will change in field conditions. However, we acknowledge the uncertainty around this estimate and the need for further research. As a result, we categorize the permanence of Mash Makes biochar to be in the 100-1000+ year half-life range. We hope to receive further information from Mash Makes field trials within a year to clarify this further. Co-Benefits Mash Makes offers two co-benefit streams: those from the avoided burning of crop waste and those from increased food security based on improved soil quality due to biochar addition. Mash Makes aims to use feedstock that would have otherwise been burnt. Converting this biomass into biochar instead prevents air pollutants from being released. These air pollutants enhance climate warming and are harmful to human health, alongside having subsequent impacts on tourism and the socioeconomic status of farmers. [16] It also contributes to climate warming by releasing black and brown carbon, which absorbs incoming solar radiation as heat and warms the air, changing rain and cloud patterns. [17] We have high certainty that the prevention of feedstock burning positively impacts human health through decreased air pollution, which likely has other flow-on environmental and socioeconomic benefits. [18] The co-benefits from improved soil quality are more difficult to quantify. Field research has shown that in some conditions, biochar can help to remediate soils, improving soil water holding capacity and nutrient availability, decreasing plant susceptibility to disease, and increasing crop yields. Increases in crop yield could benefit the food security of those living in regions with depleting soil quality and a rapidly increasing population. However, the co-benefits depend on several environmental and biochar characteristics. MASH Makes recommends that its biochar is first mixed with compost, manure or an organic fertilizer before it is applied to the soil to benefit soil health and crop productivity by charging the biochar with nutrients. [19] However, we will have higher certainty of this claim once Mash Makes field trials are complete. Overall, the geographic location of Mash Makes seems suitable for using biochar to improve soil quality and crop yields, as field trials with biochar have shown positive increases related to improved crop productivity in regions with weathered soils. [20] However, we are unsure whether optimizing Mash Makes biochar for carbon sequestration will prevent this effect. We will rely on the results from its field trials to be certain about the benefit of its biochar for soil quality. Mash Makes is currently partnering with local universities to undertake field trials on the impact of its biochar on soil quality, which will help us to increase our certainty in this area. Cost-Effectiveness Mash Makes carbon credits will be available for pre-purchase on its website for $160/ton of CO 2 by the end of 2022, with delivery in Q2 2023. Buyers can also get in touch with Mash Makes directly; credit prices are variable based on volume of purchases. We believe that this price reflects the actual cost of producing biochar. It is in the lower range of the price spectrum of other biochar projects we evaluated, which sold credits at prices between $98 and $524/ ton of CO 2 removed (average $265, median $200). Mash Makes’s price per ton is also significantly lower than other removal projects, such as Charm bio-oil , which sells carbon credits for $600/ton of CO 2 ; we note that these more expensive pathways generally have higher permanence. Mash Makes is more expensive than t he avoided emissions credits we recommend (which can be as low as $17/ton of CO 2 ). Much of the cost of the Maharashtra Model comes from the purchase of feedstock and operating costs (such as wages and electricity), as well as the initial production and deployment of the SPVs. The market determines feedstock prices, making them hard to predict, while operating costs will likely rise with inflation. Credit prices are currently not anticipated to drop further, though ways to make the technology more cost-effective are being investigated. Mash Makes is expanding from one SPV in 2022 to 50 SPVs over the next five years, meaning there is substantial room for more funding. Key uncertainties/open questions We have medium uncertainty around the permanence of biochar in field conditions. Mash Makes is currently undertaking field trials that will help us address this concern. As Mash Makes is unlikely to experience further price drops due to technological breakthroughs, we are uncertain whether it will remain cost-effective compared to our other recommendations. Supporting developing technologies, such as direct air capture, or purchasing already cheap offset credits, such as those sold by Tradewater, may prove to be a more cost-effective way of reducing or removing emissions in the long run. We are unsure as to whether carbon credits will continue to be additional in the future as Mash Makes scales up to commercial-level operations and uses investment to explore other revenue streams. This could reduce the likelihood that a removal project would not have happened without an offset purchase, but Mash Makes has informed us that carbon credits are an essential part of their model for all future ventures. We plan to re-evaluate additionality as the company expands. As Mash Makes is a for-profit company we have limited access to publicly available financial information, making it difficult to confidently assess project additionality. However, for the reasons stated above, we are not concerned by this due to our impression that offset purchases are still a core component of their funding. Conclusion Overall we have identified the Mash Makes Maharashtra Model as a high-quality, medium-permanence carbon removal project. The scalable, modular technology (the SPV model) will be tailored to the local context, allowing for more cost-effective carbon removal. The company addresses typical concerns around biochar project additionality by currently providing biochar to farmers for free to conduct field trials. Supporting Mash Makes will assist in producing more SPVs to scale up biochar production. Its team has been transparent with data and financial information; we look forward to seeing the results from its current field trials to address our uncertainty around biochar permanence and crop yield co-benefits. How to contribute to Mash Makes These credits are available for purchase through Patch here , or by contacting Mash Makes directly through its website . We thank Srikanth Vishwanath, Test and Development Engineer at Mash Makes, for the conversations that informed this document. Endnotes [1] See ‘Maharashtra Model’. Mash Makes. n.d. [2] Correspondence with Mash Makes, 2022-11-15. [3] S ee ‘Who are we?’. Mash Makes. N.d ; Correspondence with Mash Makes, 2022-11-15. [4] “...the crucible is heated over the Bunsen burner until all the carbon is burned. The residue is weighed, and the difference in weight from the previous weighing is the fixed carbon.” Speight, 2015 . [5] See abstract. Gaunt & Rondon, 2006. [6] “The top ten states that showed maximum amount of crop residues burning in our estimations are Uttar Pradesh (34.38 MT), Punjab (19.45 MT), Maharashtra (11.81 MT), Madhya Pradesh (11.77 MT), Haryana (10.51 MT), Karnataka (8.45 MT), Bihar (8.30 MT), Rajasthan (7.67 MT) and West Bengal (6.44 MT)”. Sahu et al., 2021. [7] See section 5.2. National Policy for Management of Crop Residues. 2014. [8] “An SPV is a financial instrument rather than a physical machine, made up of four container units. The money is not raised for these through Mash Makes, but instead through investors that fund individual SVPs.” Mash Makes call notes, 2022-11-15. [9] Correspondence with Mash Makes, 2022-11-15. [10] Correspondence with Mash Makes, 2022-11-15. [11] “Our projects still depend on finance based on the sale of carbon removal certificates for it to be feasible.” Mash Makes email correspondence, 2022-09-20. [12] “The state of Maharashtra itself burns about seven million tonnes of crop residue yearly – which is 80% of its total annual crop residue generated. Of this, sugarcane leaves, along with cotton, soy and wheat residue make up the bulk of the burnt stubble.” Mash Makes. n.d. [13] See “Permanence” section of Biochar Sector Overview. Giving Green, 2022. [14] “However, at elevated temperatures (40 or 60 °C), which may be experienced in tropical environments at certain times and especially in surface soil, only the biochars produced at a higher pyrolysis temperature (e.g. 550 °C) may persist for more than 100 years.” Fang et al., 2014 ; See “Conclusions” section. Kuzyakov, 2014. [15] “However, at elevated temperatures (40 or 60 °C), which may be experienced in tropical environments at certain times and especially in surface soil, only the biochars produced at a higher pyrolysis temperature (e.g. 550 °C) may persist for more than 100 years.” Fang et al., 2014. [16] “These particulate matters pose a higher health risk, monetary losses, and socioeconomic losses.” Singh et al., 2022. [17] “One contributor to global climate change is the release of fine black and also brown carbon (primary and secondary) that contributes to the change in light absorption.” Bhuvaneshwari et al. 2019. [18] “The impact of stubble-burning is not limited to human health, soil, and ambient air quality. Stubble-burning has a range of effects on economic growth and causes other social problems such as adverse effects on tourism, agricultural productivity, farmer’s socioeconomic condition, and climate effects”. Singh et al. 2022 . [19] Correspondence with Mash Makes, 2022-11-15. [20] “The greatest (positive) effects with regard to soil analyses were seen in acidic (14%) and neutral pH soils (13%), and in soils with a coarse (10%) or medium texture (13%). This suggests that two of the main mechanisms for yield increase may be a liming effect and an improved water holding capacity of the soil, along with improved crop nutrient availability.” Jeffery et al., 2011.

How do we define systems change in our work? Why do we think it is important for climate donors to fund systems change? We describe how studying history and our own evaluations have led us to prioritize systems change work. How and why we think about systems change as a climate funder // BACK Download the report: How and why we think about systems change as a climate funder .pdf Download PDF • 4.08MB Summary This report aims to explain what Giving Green means by systems change, why we believe it represents the best opportunity for climate donors, and how the design of our research process enables us to assess the impact of systems change interventions. By sharing these reflections, we hope to encourage increased transparency across philanthropy, build shared learning and best practices, encourage donors who may be newer to funding systems work to deepen their commitments, and maximize our collective impact on the climate crisis. What do we mean by systems change? We think of systems-change strategies as those that "change the rules of the game." In other words, funding systems change means funding work that ultimately changes incentives and actions beyond the project being funded. Examples include policy advocacy, technology innovation, market shaping, and strategic grassroots efforts to build political will. We observe that there is a spectrum rather than a binary when differentiating systems-change strategies from non-systems-change strategies. What are important considerations when considering systems change? The impact of a systems change intervention is often difficult to “measure” at its early stages when funding can be most critical and catalytic. Efforts to evaluate early-stage systems change efforts encounter parameters with high uncertainty, factors that are sensitive with respect to timescales, and broad or not well-defined boundary conditions. Given that standard metrics and quantification tools may not lend themselves to these characteristics, we think it is important to develop a research framework that is broad enough to capture systems impacts, general enough to be applied across diverse interventions, and rigorous enough to allow others to critically examine our research and conclusions. Under such a framework, we are confident that systems change interventions are the best bets for maximizing expected impact. Why do we think it is important that climate philanthropy supports systems change? We believe that solving climate change is fundamentally a systems problem. Philanthropy is uniquely well-positioned to fund systems change as it can take a relatively unconstrained, global, and holistic inventory of progress and dynamically fill gaps left by other sectors. For example, we think that funding systems change work complements the funding available on the voluntary carbon market, which predominantly consists of quantifiable, near-term emissions reduction or avoidance with clear project boundaries. What are some key learnings from our experience assessing systems change work? Understanding the factors influencing past systems-change successes in climate, such as solar photovoltaics and the Inflation Reduction Act, has enabled us to better evaluate today’s systems interventions. Key considerations we recommend for funders are (i) embracing uncertainty and considering secondary effects and (ii) contextualizing strategies, initiatives, and projects under a theory of change that demonstrates a path to broader impact.

The latest climate career opportunities with Giving Green. Careers Giving Green is hiring! We’re looking to grow our research team with a Research Associate and/or a Senior Researcher. In short, if you have some background in climate and desk research and you’re interested in shaping climate philanthropy with us, read on. We are also open to researchers supporting us on a contract basis with: - evaluating high-impact philanthropy for biodiversity (apply at link) - evaluating philanthropic strategies for climate mitigation or adaptation in Puerto Rico (apply at link) - a fixed-term version of the below role focused on our Top Nonprofits (apply below) Research Associate or Senior Researcher Who is Giving Green? At Giving Green, our mission is to make high-impact climate giving easier for everyone. Our researchers evaluate the climate philanthropy landscape to identify highly effective nonprofits with a need for more funding—our Top Nonprofits —and a broader portfolio of work we support through the Giving Green Fund . All together, Giving Green has raised over $30 million for the climate ecosystem and landed press mentions in Vox , the Atlantic , Time , and more. We also work with businesses, foundations, and others to help them maximize the climate impact of their money under specific constraints, e.g. our guides for Australian donors , corporate climate strategies , and ESG investing . Who are we looking for? As a member of our research team, you will help the team identify effective climate impact strategies—and the organizations implementing them—by conducting literature reviews, digging through data, developing quantitative models, speaking with experts, and more. Depending on your expertise, you might be leading the management of a research project in one area, acting as peer review for another, and/or playing a supporting role in deep desk research. Ideally, especially for Senior Researcher candidates, you’d act as a thought partner to our leadership team, proactively helping to shape our research agenda. Your responsibilities may include: Research: Conduct literature reviews and expert interviews to identify effective interventions in climate policy and technology. Conduct quantitative analyses of the impact of policies, technologies, and organizations on the climate. Write detailed research reports as well as short form content for a general audience. Collaborate with other researchers through discussion and review. Diligence and recommend potential grants from our Giving Green Fund. Contribute to the annual development of research agenda, priorities, frameworks, and metrics. Ensure our research is contributing to our ultimate goal of moving money to high-impact climate solutions. Outreach (10% for RA, 20-30% for SR): Build and maintain trusted relationships with communities in climate and philanthropy, including partners and clients. Represent our research to journalists and the public. Draft or review research-related communications (e.g. blog posts) to ensure our materials accurately reflect research findings. If you are only interested in the RA role or only in the SR role, please note this in the application. Otherwise, applicants will be considered for both roles by default. Desired qualifications: We know that strong candidates may not check all boxes, but we are looking for strength in some areas and a willingness to grow in others. General qualifications Bachelor's degree; advanced degrees preferred but not required. Excellent oral and written communication skills in English. Ability to work independently, develop your own work timelines and products, and take initiative on a small team. Entrepreneurial spirit, passion for taking action on climate change, and strong values aligned with Giving Green’s values . Climate experience, including but not limited to the following: Climate philanthropy. You’ve been a program assistant or program officer in a climate or environmental area, thinking through the hard problems of how to assess impact and need for funding in an inherently uncertain space. Climate policy. You’ve drafted and/or advocated for climate legislation, conducted the research behind new regulations, or otherwise gotten an inside view of the process. We’re especially interested in applicants with an insider view of US politics & policymaking. Climate tech. You might have worked as a climate investor or worked for a climate tech firm. You’re up to date on cutting edge innovations and you understand the hard technical challenges of decarbonization. Expertise in the specific challenges faced by low- and middle-income countries in decarbonization and climate mitigation. Experience with desk-based research, e.g.: Writing formal reports for general and expert audiences, especially writing about technical or quantitative topics. Conducting and writing literature reviews or shorter synthesis reports. Quantitative modeling, e.g. spreadsheet-based cost-effectiveness analyses. Impact evaluations, particularly in “systems change” interventions. Ability to be highly transparent with reasoning and to quickly identify and act on decision-relevant questions. Contributing to setting a research agenda, with an eye on high-level strategy and how it contributes to overall org strategy. All else equal, candidates with generalist experience in a range of climate impact strategies, depth of experience with policy and policy advocacy, and/or a strong background in desk-based research and writing will receive stronger consideration. Nuts and bolts: Giving Green is currently incubated by IDinsight, a global data analytics and advisory firm. We are a fully remote team. Candidates must have legal authorization to work in the country in which they will be based. This is an exempt position. Compensation is competitive for the non-profit sector, and will be tailored to the location and experience of the applicant. As a benchmark, for a full-time (5-day week), US-based hire, we are targeting $60,000-$90,000 for RA and $90,000-$130,000 for SR. If you have a salary requirement, please indicate this in your application. We offer comprehensive benefits to full-time employees: comprehensive international health insurance, including mental health coverage; paid vacation, sick, and parental leave; technology and work from home stipends; a professional development budget; and more. Our team members can choose to work 4 or 5-day work weeks, with salary and some benefits adjusted accordingly. We want to make a major difference in the movement to stop climate change, and you could play a crucial role in advancing our mission. Apply here: https://airtable.com/app0URweYm0vWda08/shrVtdAWDo0E8l7qq Applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis. --- We are a project incubated by IDinsight. To view jobs at IDinsight, visit IDinsight's website here .

We develop guidance for businesses of all sizes interested in maximizing the impact of their corporate climate action. 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 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—just one of the strategies we outline in the above white paper. 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

This grant to the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development funds its work to stop dumping of polluting chemicals from cooling equipment. Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development // BACK Overview The Giving Green Fund plans to award a restricted grant to the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development (IGSD) for its campaign to stop “environmental dumping” of new inefficient cooling equipment. IGSD is a US-based nonprofit focused on slowing near-term warming as quickly as possible. IGSD falls within our philanthropic strategy of supporting an energy transition in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) . Please see Giving Green’s deep dive report for more information, including risks and potential co-benefits, recommended sub-strategies, theory of change, funding need, and key uncertainties. Last updated: October 2024 What is IGSD? IGSD is a US-based nonprofit, founded in 2003, focused on “fast-action” climate mitigation. It targets reductions in non-CO2 greenhouse gases that have shorter lifetimes than CO2 and much higher global warming potential (GWP). Often referred to as “climate super pollutants”, they include methane, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), black carbon soot, tropospheric ozone, and longer-lived nitrous oxide. IGSD’s approach to fast mitigation includes science, technology, law and policy, as well as climate finance. IGSD works at the international, regional, national, and subnational levels. What are we funding at IGSD, and how could it help reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Obsolete cooling equipment can increase greenhouse gas emissions by leaking HFCs and using too much energy. This is a concern as demand for cooling grows, especially in emerging economies with high potential for air conditioning (AC) sales growth. IGSD, in collaboration with partner organizations, works to prevent the dumping of cheap but energy-inefficient ACs and other cooling equipment that use ozone-depleting and climate-warming refrigerants in climate-vulnerable LMICs. Dumped cooling equipment is typically prohibited from the market in the country that ships or markets the cooling products to countries that have yet to prohibit such imports, or do not have the capacity to protect themselves from such imports IGSD has monitored and reported on multinational companies exporting or marketing energy-inefficient cooling equipment to other countries and develops expert information that guides policymakers and their advisors on tools and strategies to prevent dumping. In addition to reducing HFCs, we think IGSD’s work can help promote the use of more efficient units by reducing the market share of inefficient, climate-harmful units, which would mitigate emissions from the electrical grid compared to the counterfactual. This would also help low- and middle-income countries access affordable, next-generation technology that will provide safe, efficient, and reliable cooling for many years to come. IGSD plans to use extra funding to support its stop dumping campaign. This could include organizing two Stop-Dumping workshops that convene stop-dumping champions from Africa, Southeast Asia, Island States, and Central Asia to share knowledge and strategies. The funding would also allow IGSD to build on past work, update data in key regions, and conduct deeper research into the causes of environmental dumping for more effective solutions. Why do we think IGSD will use this funding well? We think the success of IGSD’s Stop-Dumping campaign depends on its proven track record. Since 2018 IGSD has helped define the dumping problem, develop solutions, and recruit and train partners to ensure the campaign expands, endures, and delivers real change for climate-vulnerable LMICs undergoing energy transition. Our impression is that IGSD has cultivated strong relationships, which boosts its chances of success. For example, IGSD has partnered with key stakeholders including country partners, CLASP, the Climate & Clean Air Coalition , the United Nations Environment Programme, and others to ensure the program endures and expands.. We think that with additional funding to support its stop-dumping campaign, IGSD can expand this work to other geographies. For more on the difference between the grantees of the Giving Green Fund and our Top Nonprofits, please see this blog post on the Giving Green Fund. This is a non-partisan analysis (study or research) and is provided for educational purposes.

Energy Transition in LMICs: Grantees // BACK Outside of our Top Nonprofits, the Giving Green Fund has awarded or plans to award grants to the following organizations advancing the energy transition in low- and middle-income countries: Prayas and IIT Delhi The Center for Study of Science, Technology, and Policy (CSTEP) Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development (IGSD) Vasudha Foundation Energy for Growth Hub To understand how we identify high-leverage opportunities for philanthropists to support the clean energy transition in low- and middle-income countries, please see Giving Green's deep dive on the energy transition in low- and middle-income countries .