Climate Mitigation Tool for Philanthropy

The honest answer is that there is none. All actions suggested in this framework are only effective as part of a wider strategy that includes several solutions, each of which could, individually, only lead to incremental reduction.

1) Although the quantification of the reduction potential for individual interventions is possible, the calculations behind different interventions are not easily aligned. Hence these qualifications become tenuous when many very different interventions are portrayed next to each other. Moreover, we would like to emphasize solutions that are realistic and can be implemented quickly rather than those that have a high theoretical potential to reduce emissions.

2) Focussing on emission reduction potential distracts from the fact that there is no silver bullet. Climate change can best be tackled quickly if we implement many solutions, as small as they may be, at the same time. The biggest potential for carbon reduction loses relevance once we realise that we must implement all available solutions.  

3) When we quantify emissions reductions of different solutions, we are normally talking about potential. But this does not speak to the efficacy of philanthropic intervention in a concrete year and a specific location. An in-depth analysis of the combination of timing, region, lever and solution is necessary to actually determine the (potential) impact of a philanthropic intervention.

There are multiple solutions available to reduce emissions (mitigation) and adapt to the impacts of climate change (adaptation). To be able to provide an easily accessible overview of solutions, we have decided to separate these two issues. We are planning to develop a separate tool for adaptation once resources allow us to do so.

Carbon capture and storage technology is currently at a development stage and not yet viable at scale. Beyond unresolved technological questions, the governance of carbon capture and storage technology is still being debated. Methodologically speaking, we also excluded this type of technology because our two sources do not include them.

In principle, it is possible to approach most solutions using the whole spectrum of philanthropic levers. However, some levers lend themselves more to certain solutions than others. We have selected one or two levers per solution because these are the levers that most easily match the selected solution. We deduced the selection from the description of the specific solution by Project Drawdown and Climatestrike Switzerland. Applying other levers to the same solution can definitely be impactful but may be more challenging regarding e.g. their potential for scale, existing work to build on, or the variety of stakeholders that need to be engaged.

We have focused on two sources that make for some of the most comprehensible, publicly available catalogues of concrete solutions to cut greenhouse gas emissions. These are a) the Table of Solutions by Project Drawdown (as of March 2021) and b) the Maßnahmenkatalog by Climatestrike Switzerland (as of March 2021). The two frameworks are complementary as the former focuses on emission reduction aims and technical measures to achieve them, and the latter on socio-political measures. Moreover, Project Drawdown’s solutions are based on consolidated expert scenarios for mitigation whereas those by ClimateStrike Switzerland have been generated bottom-up through public deliberation.  

Upon further development of the tool, we will include additional catalogues of solutions. If you would like to suggest such comprehensive catalogues, please get in touch with us.

In some cases, we decided to exclude certain solutions that are part of the two above mentioned catalogues. Below, you find a list of these solutions as well as an explanation for why we have not included them.  

All solutions outlined by Project Drawdown have been included as part of our framework’s ‘sectors’, apart from:  

• “Building retrofitting” -> this comprises solutions that are already included as individual measures (e.g. better insulation or improved heating and cooling equipment).
  

All solutions from chapters 2-6 of Climatestrike Switzerland have been included as part of our framework’s ‘sectors’, apart from the following, which are too specific to Switzerland:  

• ‘2.14 Development of the Rhine harbours in Basel’ 
  
• ‘5.3 Auctioning of Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) for large renewable energy plants’ 
  
• ‘9.12 Democratic rights for all residents in Switzerland’
  

All solutions by Climatestrike Switzerland from chapters 1 and 7-12 have been included as part of our framework’s ‘systems’, apart from:  

• ‘1.1 Moratorium on new infrastructure till 2030‘ -> included in our framework’s section on sectors.
  
• ‘12.2 Sustainable alternatives for tourism’ -> this solution is too specifically geared towards alpine tourism and skiing. 
  

• ‘12.3 Legal framework for supporting climate refugees’ -> missing link to climate mitigation.
  
• ‘9.1 Public programme on green jobs’ -> this is cross-sectoral but not systemic and not  suitable for philanthropic intervention
  
• ‘9.10 Erasing flat rate taxation’-> too specific to the Swiss context, and source states explicitly that there will be no direct consequences for emissions.
  
• ‘9.4 Strengthening the care sector’ -> no relevant connection to emission reduction, rather adaptation
  
• ‘12.1 Increasing the resilience of the health system’ -> no relevant connection to emission reduction, rather adaptation
  

We combined some solutions from the two sources when they referred to the same measures. These include:  

• ‘3.4 Adapt existing laws and building regulations to net zero’ (Climatestrike Switzerland) + ‘Net-zero buildings’ (Project Drawdown)
  
• ‘Car-free cities’ (Project Drawdown) + ‘2.4 Car-free cities’ (Climatestrike Switzerland)
  
• ‘Walkable cities’ (Project Drawdown) + ‘3.11 Create framework conditions for walkable cities’ (Climatestrike Switzerland)
  
• ‘Distributed Solar Photovoltaics’ (Project Drawdown) + ‘5.2 Mandatory installation of solar panels on suitable roofs’ (Climatestrike Switzerland)
  

• ‘Nutrient Management’ (Project Drawdown) + ‘6.30 Tax on nitrogen use beyond plant demand & upper limit for the use of synthetic fertilizers’ (Climatestrike Switzerland)
  
• ‘Utility-scale energy storage’ (Project Drawdown) + ‘5.6 Exemption from grid charges for storage technologies’ (Climatestrike Switzerland)
  
• ‘5.7 Support the installation of open-space solar PV (where sensible)’ (Climatestrike Switzerland) + ‘Utility-scale photovoltaics’ (Project Drawdown)
  
• ‘High-speed rail’ (Project Drawdown) + ‘2.28 Expansion of alternatives to aviation’ (Climatestrike Switzerland) -> though the later also includes more local public transport measures, the final aim is to foster alternatives for long-distance journeys.
  
• ‘System of rice intensification’ + ‘improved rice production’ -> they are both from Project Drawdown but overlap significantly
  

‘Plant rich diets’ (Project Drawdown) is excluded as the specific solutions behind it are reflected in ‘6.12 Higher taxes on animal-based food’ as well as ‘6.27 Promote alternatives to animal proteins’ (both Climatestrike Switzerland).

‘6.18 Improve rights and working conditions of farmers’ + ‘6.19 Increase number of people working in the agricultural sector’ -> they are both from Climatestrike Switzerland but overlap significantly

‘6.29 Promote low-input agriculture’ (Climatestrike Switzerland) was excluded as other solutions account for this solution in more concrete ways (e.g. Project Drawdown’s ‘Managed grazing’ or ‘Perennial staple crops’).