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.
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".