In this post, I explain why nuclear power is highly unlikely to meaningfully contribute to the energy transition beyond existing plants and why advocacy for it should not be considered an effective intervention for climate philanthropy. I aim to convince those who give some portion of their giving to Founder’s Pledge or Giving Green’s climate funds to discontinue doing so until charities that engage in nuclear advocacy are no longer part of their recommended charities lists. I encourage Giving What We Can and other re-granters to do likewise.

In short, private philanthropists interested in effective climate change mitigation should not fund nuclear power advocacy.

The justification for this claim centers on the economics of nuclear power. Nuclear power’s main feasible market is electricity production, where it faces superior competition from other technologies. Nuclear power does not have a feasible economic pathway to become cost competitive for bulk power generation. Historically, between 17% – 41% of Founder’s Pledge Climate Fund and 4 – 8% of Giving Green’s Fund have gone towards nuclear advocacy. Percentage calculations are from this spreadsheet. The lower number is dedicated nuclear advocacy funding, and the higher number includes funding for organizations where nuclear advocacy is a portion of their work. A reasonable estimate is 18% of grants across both funds have gone towards nuclear advocacy. Cumulatively, it is the most funded specific intervention in the Effective Environmentalism / EA climate philanthropy space. Giving Green’s funding priorities have shifted considerably in the last two years, with nuclear and nuclear-adjacent work going from around 20% of funding in 2023 to 5% of funding in 2025.