Last week, Giving Green released our 2024 climate giving research, recommendations, and grantmaking, including evaluations of eight high-impact philanthropic strategies and an updated list of six Top Nonprofits. All were determined using our stepwise research process, which first identifies philanthropic strategies that we believe are most cost-effective within the climate space, and then evaluates organizations working on those strategies.

From our long list of 30 philanthropic strategies, we decided to focus on eight in 2024. They are:

  • Reducing food systems emissions
  • Decarbonizing aviation and maritime shipping
  • Decarbonizing heavy industry
  • Advancing next-generation geothermal energy
  • Supporting advanced nuclear
  • Advancing the energy transition in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)
  • Advancing solar radiation management (SRM) governance
  • Scaling demand for carbon dioxide removal (CDR)

The first five strategies are continuations from previous years, while the final three are new in 2024. Historically, we have prioritized strategies focused on reducing GHG emissions. This year, we also explored “climate interventions”—strategies that don’t address the source of warming but, given the rapid rate of warming, offer promising opportunities to supplement emissions reductions and protect human and ecological well-being. SRM governance and CDR fall into this category.

These evaluations informed our updated list of Top Nonprofits, which includes longstanding recommendations, Clean Air Task Force, The Good Food Institute, Industrious Labs, Opportunity Green, and Project InnerSpace, with one new addition, Future Cleantech Architects.

For a more detailed breakdown of this research and how it informed our list of Top Nonprofits and Giving Green Fund grants, read our latest blog post. This post additionally lists all of the planned Q4 grantees from the Giving Green fund. In Q4, we allocated 10.5M USD, primarily powered by a 10M anonymous gift.

31

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments3


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thanks for sharing. I would be curious to know your thoughts on the apparent uncertainty of whether deaths from non-optimal temperature are going to decrease or increase.

Hi, Vasco. Our research is focused on high-impact philanthropic strategies to slow greenhouse gas emissions and warming temperatures. So, this isn't our area of expertise. But you can find an analysis we recently read and discussed on the topic here: https://ourworldindata.org/part-two-how-many-people-die-from-extreme-temperatures-and-how-could-this-change-in-the-future

Thanks for the reply. I used data from that analysis in my post, concluding "It seems to me there is still significant uncertainty about whether global warming is good/bad from the point of view of changing global deaths from non-optimal temperature".

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
Garrison
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
This is the full text of a post from "The Obsolete Newsletter," a Substack that I write about the intersection of capitalism, geopolitics, and artificial intelligence. I’m a freelance journalist and the author of a forthcoming book called Obsolete: Power, Profit, and the Race to build Machine Superintelligence. Consider subscribing to stay up to date with my work. Wow. The Wall Street Journal just reported that, "a consortium of investors led by Elon Musk is offering $97.4 billion to buy the nonprofit that controls OpenAI." Technically, they can't actually do that, so I'm going to assume that Musk is trying to buy all of the nonprofit's assets, which include governing control over OpenAI's for-profit, as well as all the profits above the company's profit caps. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman already tweeted, "no thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want." (Musk, for his part, replied with just the word: "Swindler.") Even if Altman were willing, it's not clear if this bid could even go through. It can probably best be understood as an attempt to throw a wrench in OpenAI's ongoing plan to restructure fully into a for-profit company. To complete the transition, OpenAI needs to compensate its nonprofit for the fair market value of what it is giving up. In October, The Information reported that OpenAI was planning to give the nonprofit at least 25 percent of the new company, at the time, worth $37.5 billion. But in late January, the Financial Times reported that the nonprofit might only receive around $30 billion, "but a final price is yet to be determined." That's still a lot of money, but many experts I've spoken with think it drastically undervalues what the nonprofit is giving up. Musk has sued to block OpenAI's conversion, arguing that he would be irreparably harmed if it went through. But while Musk's suit seems unlikely to succeed, his latest gambit might significantly drive up the price OpenAI has to pay. (My guess is that Altman will still ma
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
When we built a calculator to help meat-eaters offset the animal welfare impact of their diet through donations (like carbon offsets), we didn't expect it to become one of our most effective tools for engaging new donors. In this post we explain how it works, why it seems particularly promising for increasing support for farmed animal charities, and what you can do to support this work if you think it’s worthwhile. In the comments I’ll also share our answers to some frequently asked questions and concerns some people have when thinking about the idea of an ‘animal welfare offset’. Background FarmKind is a donation platform whose mission is to support the animal movement by raising funds from the general public for some of the most effective charities working to fix factory farming. When we built our platform, we directionally estimated how much a donation to each of our recommended charities helps animals, to show users.  This also made it possible for us to calculate how much someone would need to donate to do as much good for farmed animals as their diet harms them – like carbon offsetting, but for animal welfare. So we built it. What we didn’t expect was how much something we built as a side project would capture peoples’ imaginations!  What it is and what it isn’t What it is:  * An engaging tool for bringing to life the idea that there are still ways to help farmed animals even if you’re unable/unwilling to go vegetarian/vegan. * A way to help people get a rough sense of how much they might want to give to do an amount of good that’s commensurate with the harm to farmed animals caused by their diet What it isn’t:  * A perfectly accurate crystal ball to determine how much a given individual would need to donate to exactly offset their diet. See the caveats here to understand why you shouldn’t take this (or any other charity impact estimate) literally. All models are wrong but some are useful. * A flashy piece of software (yet!). It was built as
Recent opportunities in Effective giving
63
· · 1m read