Giving Green (BETA)

Short-term recommendations

 

Short term donation options seek to cause immediate, verifiable decreases in GHG emissions (or increase carbon capture). They generally consists of funding non-profits or businesses who are conducting pro-climate activities. Donors can purchase carbon offsets, invest in companies with a pro-climate mission, purchase green bonds, or donate to environmental NGOs that are running GHG-reduction programs. We have started our analysis with carbon offsets, but we provide more details on other types of donation options here.

 

Carbon offsets

Summary and recommendations

Carbon offsets should be the ideal solution for donors looking to contribute to verified reductions in atmospheric GHGs. Carbon offsets fund projects that are supposed to reduce GHGs. These projects are validated by respected certification agencies developed to confirm GHG reduction. Each offset represents a specific amount of reduced carbon emissions, allowing individuals or businesses to go “carbon neutral” by funding these initiatives to offset their own emissions.

Unfortunately, even offsets certified by the main agencies frequently do not result in guaranteed reduced emissions. It is fiendishly difficult to demonstrate “additionality,” which requires selling and purchasing offsets to be necessary for the project to be implemented. Even for “good” projects, it is extremely unlikely that purchasing the offset results in its advertised guarantee of eliminating one ton of CO2 of emissions. Therefore, we consider it unrealistic for a purchaser of carbon credit to confidently offset all of their emissions.

However, we believe some offsets do represent opportunities to donate to organizations undertaking activities that have proven, positive effects on climate.

Even if it is not possible to calculate the exact amount of emissions reduced by an offset purchase, we recommend certain offsets that we believe have a demonstrated effect on climate change.

Our analysis of the offset market is not yet comprehensive; unfortunately, based on our initial analysis we have found only one offset we can recommend with confidence. Our sector-specific analyses give additional guidance on what features to look for in an offset that make it more likely to result in real GHG emission.

You can find more information in our overview of the voluntary offset market.


Recommended offsets

Our initial analysis has produced just one offset opportunity that we can recommend with confidence:

Picture_homepage_BURN2.jpg

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, these stoves provided households with major economic benefits due to reduced fuel costs for cooking. You cannot purchase offsets linked to BURN stoves directly online, but you can do so by contacting BURN at carbon@burnmfg.com. Alternatively, you can make a donation to BURN directly here.

While we have only found one specific offset to confidently recommend at this point, donors can find more detail in our sector-specific analyses below. They detail which sectors are more likely to contain promising offsets, and how to search for the best offsets within each category.


Offset sector analyses

We explore offsets by sector (energy, forestry, etc), since the certification methodologies are sector-specific, and therefore offsets in certain sectors tend to be more reliable than others.

Note that the analysis below is not comprehensive. We looked at some of the most common categories of offsets, and at various options within each category, but more work is needed to scour the entirety of the offset landscape.

 
priscilla-du-preez-tJ1uvdf68e0-unsplash.jpg

Grid renewable energy

Adding renewable energy capacity to the electricity grid is a critical part of the energy transition, and almost certainly contributes to reduced GHG emissions. However, it is very difficult to prove the additionality of renewable energy offsets, since many projects would be built regardless of the ability to sell carbon credits. Since renewable energy projects are frequently large and complex, project developers can’t rely on the uncertain voluntary offset market to justify new projects. Projects likely to be additional are ones in locations where renewable energy is unprofitable and not mandated, where offsets provide a large proportion of the funding, and ones where the developer is continuing to develop new projects. Unfortunately, we have not yet been able to identify offsets tied to renewable energy projects that we feel confident recommending. 

 
thomas-richter-B09tL5bSQJk-unsplash.jpg

Waste Biogas Capture

Waste sites (such as landfills and agricultural waste storage) produce biogas from the decomposition of organic materials, including the powerful greenhouse gas methane. With the right infrastructure and systems, companies and municipalities can capture this methane and either destroy it or convert it into energy. Biogas capture projects cause a clear reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emission, but it is unclear whether carbon offsets actually cause the projects to be implemented. While we have not yet found any biogas-related carbon offsets to recommend, we believe that there are likely circumstances where these offsets do cause real emissions reductions.  Better biogas offsets are in places where methane capture is not mandated by regulation (either current or future), and in sites where the electricity generated by biogas is not enough to make the project profitable.  

 
BURN cookstoves

BURN cookstoves

Fuel Efficient Cookstoves

Adoption of fuel efficient cookstoves can decrease household fuel use, and therefore carbon emissions. There are a wide variety of cookstove offsets on the market, using different technologies in different contexts. Although the methodology used to certify these projects ensures that they make a reasonable case they are offsetting emissions, it also requires strong assumptions around stove use and changes in cooking behavior. The impact evaluation literature shows highly mixed results. Some Randomized Control Trials (RCTs) show cookstoves have strong effects on fuel usage, and others show null effects. We don’t feel comfortable recommending cookstove offsets in general, as the RCT literature shows that the required assumptions are frequently not satisfied. However, we would recommend offset projects that are very similar to those that have shown strong results in a rigorous evaluation, such as the recent work by Berkouwer and Dean (2019). For instance, the manufacturer of the cookstove studied in this RCT (BURN) sells carbon credits. Purchasing these credits is very likely to result in real emissions reduction (though it is very unlikely to map directly into the promised decrease in emissions of 1 ton of CO2 promised by the carbon credit.) You can purchase offsets generated by BURN by emailing carbon@burnmfg.com. Additionally, you can make a direct contribution to BURN here.

 
samara-doole-peaTniZsUQs-unsplash.jpg

Water Purification

Offsets based around water purification technology rely on the assumption that the technology is replacing boiling water for purification. Many would agree that households receiving the filters are not currently boiling water and don’t intend to. However, the offsets are granted on the questionable theory of “suppressed demand,” which is based on the concept that households have a right to clean water, and if they were wealthy enough, they would have boiled the water in the absence of the new technology. Although endorsed by the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), we don’t find this logic convincing, and therefore do not recommend any offsets tied to water purification.

 
denis-agati-F9DfAwrm5FE-unsplash.jpg

Forestry

Forestry carbon offsets suffer from a number of problems that make it difficult to know their true impact. It is difficult to measure the contribution of any forestry offset project – there is limited rigorous evaluation research on the effectiveness of forestry interventions. Of particular concern is “permanence”, which refers to the fact that in order to keep CO2 out of the atmosphere, trees must stay alive for many years. This adds an additional layer of uncertainty to any forestry project that is nearly impossible to resolve. To make things more complicated, the relationship between forests and global warming is complicated, and there is some controversy in the scientific community as to how much changing forest cover affects the temperature of the planet. At this moment, we have not found any forestry offsets that we feel confident recommending.


 

Other GHG Reduction options

Green Bonds

Companies can issue green bonds in order to finance pro-environmental activities. Like offsets, Green Bonds are certified by respected certification agencies, who are supposed to ensure that the money raised by the bonds is used to fight climate change (or in some cases for undertake other conservation activities). However, green bonds have also been criticized for being ineffectual.

Giving Green has yet to undertake an analysis of the green bonds market, but we hope to do so in the near future. 

Pro-Climate Corporate Investment

The private sector will unquestionably need to be involved in fighting climate change, especially in leading the transition to a clean energy economy. For instance, the private sector provides the majority of electricity generation, including for renewable energy. Therefore, one way to promote GHG reduction is to invest in companies in this space, such as those developing wind or solar generation capacity. Although these companies frequently generate carbon credits and sell them in the offset market, it may be more attractive for investors to simply purchase equity stakes in these companies.

Giving Green has yet to undertake an analysis of pro-climate corporate investments, but we hope to do so in the near future.

NGO Donations

There are many non-profit organizations that are working on conservation projects throughout the world. Frequently, these organizations receive some funding from carbon offsets, but also accept direct donations. If NGOs are undertaking activities backed by rigorous evidence, it may make sense to simply contribute to them directly as opposed to purchased offsets linked to their projects.

Giving Green has yet to undertake an analysis of NGO donations, but we hope to do so in the near future.