Posted on

Climate Organizations Influencing Society

This is part two in our article series about how we consider the climate projects that we support. This part focuses on climate organizations that influence society.

There are many organizations trying to stop climate change by influencing society in various ways, such as by developing political proposals, organizing demonstrations, or through lobbying. We at GoClimate work for systemic changes just like other climate organizations in this category, but we also support certain other organizations such as Klimatriksdagen (Sweden) and Shado (UK). We choose to support organizations where even small contributions can make a big difference, which ensures that our contributions provide what is called additional climate benefit. This means that we want our money to contribute to a climate benefit that would not have occurred if we had not contributed the money.

In addition, we support projects and individuals where our contribution, in addition to providing direct climate benefit, also indirectly contributes to us getting more funds for further climate work. An example could be sponsoring a climate conference with 10,000 SEK, which not only creates direct climate benefit but also attracts corporate customers who contribute an additional 20,000 SEK to climate projects, effectively more than doubling the climate benefit for the invested money.

Supporting society-influencing organizations is complex. We do not want to support any concrete party politics and do not support specific political parties. But we believe it is crucial to show, among other things through debate articles, to politicians that the climate crisis is urgent and that political solutions are an essential part of the answer

When we support different climate organizations, we believe it is important to carefully evaluate them and try to calculate the benefit they provide, something we think the organization Giving Green does well. The challenge in evaluating these organizations lies in how to calculate the climate benefit they achieve in terms of tons of carbon dioxide. Giving Green uses a method where they calculate backwards from previously achieved results and make a series of assumptions about what proportion of the result for a specific action is thanks to the organization.

A simplified example: An organization drives a political proposal that leads to the U.S. reducing its emissions by 1%. When the proposal is implemented, 1% of the U.S.’s annual emissions equals an incredible 63 million tons of CO2e. To calculate the organization’s share of this, one can assume that the organization expedited the proposal by six months. This means that the organization may have contributed to 31.5 million tons of CO2e climate benefit in half a year. If the organization achieved this with a budget of 10 million dollars, it means that each dollar contributed to eliminating 3.2 tons of CO2e, which corresponds to a cost of 0.3 dollars per ton CO2e. This is a cost-effective result, but the calculation also contains some uncertainties.

1.1 The reason we do not exclusively support such projects

We believe that it is possible to achieve significant climate benefit through these types of organizations. In fact, it can be one of the most cost-effective ways to make a climate impact. As an example, the article’s author gives 50% of their donations to GeEffektivt’s recommended climate organizations and 50% to GoClimate’s measurable and certified climate projects.

1.1.1 Uncertainty in the assumptions

Despite this, there are uncertainties in these calculations. It is not always certain that the organization actually contributed or that they could do more good with additional funding. However, we are strong advocates of trying to evaluate the benefit, even if it poses challenges. The efficiency of charitable organizations can vary greatly, so we recommend supporting organizations that GeEffektivt and Giving Green highlight.

1.1.2 By definition political

Moreover, support for certain proposals driven by these organizations often involves a political stance. This can be problematic for some of our corporate clients. Therefore, it is important to be aware of these aspects when supporting politically influencing organizations.

1.1.3 Measurability

At GoClimate, we value being able to specify the exact climate benefit that each contribution provides. We have seen that both individuals and companies appreciate traceability and are willing to contribute more when they know exactly what their money accomplishes. Therefore, we focus on climate projects where the benefit is measurable, clear, third-party audited, and transparently reported.

We also believe that there is strength in each individual and company taking responsibility for their own emissions. This means that those who emit more carbon dioxide should contribute more to climate work. If someone has caused 10 tons of CO2e in emissions during a year, they should pay proportionally more than someone who has only caused 1 ton of CO2e. This principle places high demands on the measurability of the climate projects we support and it is not at all certain that a specific sum of money will prevent or neutralize an exact amount of CO2e moving forward through these organizations.

However, it is important to emphasize that uncertainty exists in all types of climate projects. In the case of the projects we are discussing here, the uncertainty and traceability can be particularly high, even though the potential benefit can also be very significant.

Please feel free to contact us at [email protected] if you think there is anything we have missed on this topic, we are always open to learning more!

Keep an eye out for the next part in this article series which will be about climate projects that contribute to reduced emissions.

Posted on

The 1.5 °C goal

On an individual level, to manage the 1.5 °C goal, the global average of greenhouse gas emissions needs to come down to 2.5 tonnes by 2030 and 0.7 tonnes by 2050 (these levels can be raised slightly if new technologies which will be able remove emissions are considered). For 2023, our goal is 3.5 tonnes/per person – public consumption is excluded in these numbers, they only represent what we as individuals directly can affect in our daily lives.

Lifestyle changes

This might seem like an impossible challenge, but remember that the global average is a footprint of 3.4 tonnes CO2e – so it is a feasible goal if we embrace making some necessary changes to our lifestyle and stop seeing the planet as a never ending resource for us to use.

On average our emissions need to decrease by at least 7% every year. However, the amount of emissions per individual varies depending on several factors – from socio-economical to geographical ones. For some, thinking about reducing emissions is not feasible. It is primarily the Global North having a greater historical responsibility and as we are facing a global challenge we need all hands on deck. For those of us who have the privilege of growing up in wealthy countries and safe communities, we might want to consider doing more – to allow for those who cannot act immediately some time to catch up and reach the same level of comfort and security as we might already benefit from. Read more about Climate justice here.

Why is it crucial to keep the global temperature increase below 1.5°C?

We have already reached a global warming of +1.2°C which means we don’t have much time left before we get to +1.5°C. Pledges have been made but not yet implemented. If put in use, they will at best keep temperatures to a +2.6°C rise – which is likely to still be devastating to the planet.

As well as being crucial for people and ecosystems that we stay below +1.5C global warming, it is also key in order to create a more sustainable and equitable society as a whole.

Yearly, 15-20 million people are forced to abandon their homes due to natural disasters caused by climate change. With every rise in temperature, the number of people forced to escape goes up – while keeping the 1.5°C goal would keep more people safe.

GoClimate has developed a carbon footprint calculator as a first step in understanding the true carbon footprint of an individual. Find out your personal carbon emission levels at go climate.com

 References: Aalto University, IGES, Ivanova 2015, Stockholm Resilience Centre. 

Posted on

Civil disobedience for the climate

Civil disobedience is something that is not very common in Sweden, and is associated with being rowdy and uncompromising. Many believe that we have a well-functioning society where it is the individual’s duty to follow the law and maintain order. Can that be true, while there are also reasons to not comply? If so, could the climate be such an issue? We at GoClimate believe that the climate crisis is so big that we need to explore all ways to act on it, and with this post we want to inform about one method already applied, both to create understanding of it and at the same time inspire one another to find new ways to get engaged that suits everyone.

Civil disobedience is defined as the citizen’s active refusal to comply with a law or an order from the government, in order to change society. It is a non-violent method to highlight that something in society is morally wrong, and therefore one does not agree to be involved in it. Resorting to civil disobedience as a method can be seen as a last resort, when the formal paths to drive change have not worked.

Peaceful demonstration against climate change

What can be important to bear in mind when considering whether civil disobedience is a good or bad method of social change, is that it is difficult to imagine a change before it has happened. What would the United States look like without slavery? How would England work if women were allowed to vote? Today, we generally agree that slavery is wrong and voting rights are a right regardless of gender, and using that reasoning we must also assume that in a hundred years’ time our grandchildren will be living in a society that has undergone even more changes. Moreover, the pace of change seems to be accelerating rather than slowing down, so it is reasonable to believe that we are not living in the most highly developed form of a human society yet.

What has civil disobedience actually accomplished historically? Perhaps the most well-known example is Mahatma Ghandi’s struggle for India’s independence from British colonial power, which included a long march in which he broke the salt law. Another person who today is praised for her courage is Rosa Parks, who refused to leave her seat on the bus in Montgomery to let a white passenger sit. Women’s suffrage is another example of what has been accomplished, however that struggle did involve violence. It can thus be individuals as well as groups and movements who perform civil disobedience, but neither Ghandi nor Parks acted alone.

More and more people gather to demonstrate for a societal change towards a sustainable planet

In 2018, Greta Thunberg sat down outside the Swedish Parliament to strike for the climate. She thus violated the Swedish Education Act, arguing “why should we study for a future that is being taken away from us?”. Greta is perhaps a special case in civil disobedience because she does not violate the law that she believes is the problem, but does so to raise another issue. We at GoClimate are convinced that Greta’s morality is right, and that we as a society must change to live in accordance with it. The fact that Greta is a child who is not going to school has undeniably been a thorn in the side for many around the world. The fact that she has become the front person of Fridays For Future, where millions of children around the world follow her example and strike from school, is both proof of the reach that civil disobedience can achieve and the seriousness that today’s children and young people feel about the climate issue.

Within the environmental movement, Greenpeace and Extinction Rebellion are two organizations that use civil disobedience to call for attention and push environmental issues. Greenpeace’s actions often target large companies and directly block operators from engaging in environmentally harmful activities, while Extinction Rebellion’s actions have instead intended to cripple society and influence the masses by blocking bridges and roads. Both organizations are considered controversial, although many believe that their work highlights major problems that we have to handle.

How you choose to engage yourself in the climate issue is your own choice, and we at GoClimate hope that we can contribute to a transition to a sustainable society as quickly as possible. Committing civil disobedience is a method that has had a major impact historically on important issues, and it is already part of the environment and climate movement. Civil disobedience continues to be a relevant option because it is clear that systemic changes are not occurring at the pace necessary to secure a habitable planet in the not too distant future.

No matter what you do with your time and engagement, you can always combine that with compensating for your carbon footprint through us at GoClimate. This way, you can do as much good as possible for the climate!