Shift Key with Robinson Meyer and Jesse Jenkins

Episode: "How to Make Your Climate Giving Count, According to an Expert"

Date: November 26, 2025 | Host: Heatmap News

Guest: Daniel Stein (Founder & Executive Director, Giving Green)

Overview

This episode dives deep into the challenges and opportunities of climate philanthropy in 2025. Hosts Robinson Meyer and Jesse Jenkins welcome Daniel Stein of Giving Green to explore how individuals and organizations can maximize the impact of their climate donations—especially in the shifting political landscape shaped by the Trump administration and amidst high-profile shifts in philanthropic strategy (such as Bill Gates’ “strategic pivot” to fighting poverty). The conversation ranges from Giving Green’s evolving evaluation methodologies, key recommendations for this year’s Giving Tuesday, changes in the climate NGO space, and philosophical debates about mitigation versus adaptation, growth versus emissions, and depolarizing climate action.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Giving Green’s Mission and Approach

• What is Giving Green?
  Daniel Stein describes Giving Green as a nonprofit designed to “make climate giving really easy” by rigorously researching and recommending organizations with the highest impact per dollar donated.

  “Part of our thesis is that giving donations to really impactful climate organizations are some of the most powerful things that individuals can do to fight the climate crisis.” — Daniel Stein (04:13)

• Comparison to GiveWell:
  Giving Green is deliberately modeled after GiveWell, but targets climate rather than global health/development. Their platform provides both direct recommendations and a regranting fund, allowing donors to either follow curated advice or navigate a longer list to support specific interests.
• Free, Personalized Advisory:
  Jenkins notes the “concierge, philanthropic advisory” aspect, and Stein emphasizes it’s all free:

  “Except it’s free. That’s the best part.” — Daniel Stein (07:35)

2. 2025 Top Recommended Climate Nonprofits (06:56 - 11:00)

Daniel Stein lists Giving Green’s five top recommended groups for this year (alphabetically, not ranked), with organizations focused on major systemic levers:

• Clean Air Task Force: Policy and technology advocacy, especially in heavy transport, advanced geothermal, and market incentives for clean, firm power.

• Future Clean Tech Architects: EU-focused, techno-economic and policy work on aviation and heavy industries (steel, concrete).

• Good Food Institute: Advancing alternative proteins to address livestock emissions (“How can we essentially create meat without animals and therefore without the emissions?”).

• Opportunity Green: UK-based, focused on policy for decarbonizing aviation, shipping, and some industrial sectors.

• Project InnerSpace: Advancing next-gen geothermal—“a really exciting bet on how we can increase the amount of clean, firm power on the grid.” (10:06)

  “... we think are doing super important work. We very deeply vetted them and we think they can absorb a lot of extra money...” — Daniel Stein (05:53)

• The full set of 29 grantees is available online; donors can also reach out for tailored advice.

3. Technological Focus in Recommendations (11:00 - 13:57)

• Both hosts note the list’s strong tilt toward technology and market/policy change.

  “Many of them are quite technologically focused and they're focused on changing markets or changing policies in ways that bring the next set of decarbonization technologies to market. What drove that focus and what drove it now?” — Jesse Jenkins (11:03)

• Stein explains their research and inspiration from historical “victories”:
  • Massive, unexpected cost drops in batteries and solar, driven by “technology created, then mass produced at low cost,” which then “takes over industries and doesn’t really need support anymore.”

  “If you can solve the problem with technology ... you have a self perpetuating solution ... that can completely solve whole industries on their own.” — Daniel Stein (13:27)

4. Quantification vs. Systems Change in Climate Giving (13:57 - 21:35)

• Early aspirations to rigorously model “dollars per ton” of CO₂ abatement—similar to a classic GiveWell approach—proved limited for big systemic shifts.
• Stein describes a shift from highly measurable projects (say, distributing efficient cookstoves) to those with “potential outcomes that are way bigger, even if you have a lot more uncertainty”—like accelerating alt proteins or passing major policy.

  “It’s become a smaller part of our overall decision process because ... we have to be humble and just say like, look, these models are a little bit of a stretch and we have to combine them with more qualitative approaches and theory-based approaches.” — Daniel Stein (16:47)

• The new methodology includes heuristics (“scale, feasibility, and funding need”) plus broad expert consultation.

5. Political Leverage, Movement Activism, & The Sunrise Example (21:35 - 28:44)

• Jenkins observes a journey in Giving Green’s recommendations—from “carbon offset” types, to movement activism (e.g., Sunrise Movement), to today’s more technocratic/technology-centric groups.
• Stein credits movement groups like Sunrise for having a “super clear theory of change” that in some sense delivered (helped elect Democrats, pass major climate policy), but sees such “really impactful activist groups” as “rare and potentially hard to identify in the early days.”

  “Show me another early Sunrise ... and we're super open to supporting something like that ... But ... those opportunities are going to be few and far between and we can't bank on them.” — Daniel Stein (28:00)

6. Climate Philanthropy Under Trump: Making Progress in Adversity (28:44 - 34:25)

• Stein expresses the emotional challenge of watching earlier policy wins rolled back, but stresses the need for realism and incrementalism.

  “Even if it’s three steps forward, two steps back or whatever.” — Daniel Stein (29:08)

• Where can philanthropists still make an impact?
  • Clean, firm power (e.g., nuclear, geothermal) is one area with bipartisan possibilities.
  • “Decreasing deployment barriers” (permitting, transmission, local and federal siting reform)—fields where civil society and philanthropy can provide essential technical and policy capacity, especially as government agencies may lack technocratic depth.
• Jenkins notes the Trump administration’s paradoxical energy approach: antagonistic to EVs, supportive of nuclear/geothermal—a “confusing mix.”

  “So that’s part of it: do the stuff we can do when we can do it.” — Daniel Stein (34:25)

7. Adaptation vs. Mitigation, the Gates Memo, and Climate’s Fundamental Trade-offs (38:41 - 51:19)

• On Bill Gates’ “strategic pivot”:
  • Stein found Gates’ actual memo more nuanced than its media coverage: “He said ... we should really focus our mitigation resources where they really matter and where there’s the most impact to be using them smarter. And I said, well, that’s what I do. I agree with you.” — Daniel Stein (40:11)
  • Stein’s take: mitigation is still crucial, and it’s where philanthropy can best solve coordination (“free rider”) problems.
• Jenkins and Meyer discuss why adaptation is both less prominent and harder to evaluate/report: because it’s always local and often a function of a place’s wealth and resilience.
• Stein: “I really think the best tool for adaptation is economic growth ... Is there something for me as a philanthropist that I can do that’s different? I don’t know.” (44:17)
• The episode discusses real world friction over “growth vs. emissions”—from US policy restricting fossil finance to the practical priorities of countries like India.

  “Find me the person who thinks that India should halve its economic growth in order to decrease emissions. I don’t know who those people are. We certainly don’t advocate for that.” — Daniel Stein (46:56)

• The crux for the Global South: “How do you provide the electricity ... at the lowest carbon emissions possible? And ... get the incentives right?” — Daniel Stein (51:07)

8. The Risk of Polarization and the Path Forward (51:19 - 56:09)

• Stein expresses deep concern about growing polarization—“a pro climate left and an anti climate right where both sides try to tear down everything”—but hopes for the reemergence of a bipartisan middle focused on “energy abundance.”
• “Technology is going to have to be the key thing no one hates. Well, that’s not true. ... plenty of people hate technology. And the Trump administration seems to hate wind.” — Daniel Stein (53:13)
• Jenkins frames the open question: Should climate be the central partisan wedge (as Sunrise claimed), or is true climate progress rooted in depolarization?

  “Is the path to avoiding that polarized world to make climate central to how one party frames itself ... or is it to say, actually climate needs to work a little bit more in the background and we should try to depolarize climate change?” — Jesse Jenkins (54:17)

• Stein: “I think it’s depolarizing. ... You can get certain constituencies within both parties to agree on certain points ... That’s what I want to get back to.” (55:08)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Effective Climate Philanthropy:

  “Giving donations to really impactful climate organizations are some of the most powerful things individuals can do to fight the climate crisis.” — Daniel Stein (04:13)

• On Methodological Humility:

  “We have to be humble and just say like, look, these models are a little bit of a stretch and we have to combine them with more qualitative approaches and theory-based approaches.” — Daniel Stein (16:47)

• On Adaptation and Growth:

  “I really think the best tool for adaptation is economic growth. I just think that countries and people who are wealthier are going to be able to adapt … Is there something for me as a philanthropist that I can do that’s different? I don’t know.” — Daniel Stein (44:17)

• On Political Bipartisanship:

  “I do think that the climate movement has to think about creating policies that are a little bit more evergreen, a little bit more bipartisan … to make them a little bit more durable.” — Daniel Stein (30:40)

• On Polarization:

  “I’m honestly quite concerned about polarization in climate and I’m nervous about a future where both in the US and Europe … you have sort of a pro climate left and an anti climate right where both sides try to tear down everything.” — Daniel Stein (51:55)

Timestamps for Major Segments

| Segment | Speaker(s) | Start | |--------------------------------------------|---------------------------|------------| | Introduction & context for 2025 | Meyer, Jenkins | 00:01 | | What is Giving Green? | Meyer, Jenkins, Stein | 04:05 | | How Giving Green chooses recommendations | Jenkins, Stein | 05:12 | | Top 5 recommended climate NGOs for 2025 | Jenkins, Stein | 06:56 | | Why a tech/policy focus? | Jenkins, Stein | 11:00 | | Quantitative models vs. systems thinking | Jenkins, Meyer, Stein | 13:57 | | The arc of Giving Green’s recommendations | Jenkins, Stein | 21:35 | | Political context (Trump era/rollback) | Jenkins, Stein | 28:44 | | Areas of ongoing opportunity (clean power, permitting) | Jenkins, Stein | 30:51 | | Adaptation, mitigation & the Gates memo | Jenkins, Stein | 38:41 | | Global South perspectives, growth vs. emissions | Meyer, Jenkins, Stein | 46:25 | | Risks of polarization & the path forward | Jenkins, Stein | 51:55 | | Closing thoughts | Jenkins, Stein | 56:09 |

Conclusion

Who should listen: Anyone interested in effective climate philanthropy, the “big levers” of the decarbonization challenge, or the intersection of climate, politics, and technocratic realism.
Key takeaway: In a fractious political era, thoughtful, adaptive, and systems-oriented climate giving matters more than ever—and staying effective means balancing ambition, humility, and a pragmatic understanding of what levers can actually move the system.