Posted on

How We Choose Climate Projects

At GoClimate, we prioritize quality and efficiency in our support for climate projects. Our rigorous selection process is based on the following criteria to ensure that every project we support truly contributes to climate improvements.

Certification: We require that an independent third party certifies the projects, guaranteeing that they meet continuously updated and increasingly higher standards.

Additionality: It’s crucial that the projects would not have been realized without funding from climate initiatives. This principle ensures that our investment leads to a real change.

Verification: The climate benefit of each project is verified by an independent third party, ensuring its efficiency and credibility.

Traceability: We ensure that funding is traceable through transparent and open databases. This prevents double counting and ensures the project’s uniqueness.

Durability: The projects must offer lasting effect, meaning the benefits do not disappear over time.

Contribution to Sustainable Development: Beyond the direct climate benefits, the projects should also contribute to sustainable development, such as creating job opportunities or contributing to cleaner air. It’s important that the projects do not contribute to negative social development where they are implemented.

At GoClimate, we focus on supporting the best climate projects. We have chosen to work only with projects certified by Gold Standard. This is because we believe that Gold Standard has the strictest and best requirements for climate projects.

What Makes Gold Standard So Special?

Stringent Requirements: Gold Standard has stricter rules compared to other standards. They ensure that the projects really need the money to be implemented and continue to make a difference.

Focus on the 1.5-Degree Target: Projects supported by Gold Standard are those that help us reach our global climate goals. This means that they do not support projects linked to fossil fuels or nuclear energy.

Updated Requirements: Gold Standard regularly updates its requirements to ensure that the money is used where it is most beneficial for the climate.

Our conclusion is that supporting Gold Standard-certified projects is the best way to make a difference right now. However, we are open to changing our approach if we find other ways to achieve even greater climate benefits in the future.

Please feel free to contact us if you think there’s something we’ve missed, as we are always open to learning more!

Posted on

Projects Contributing to Reduced Emissions

This is part three of our article series about how we consider the climate projects we support. This part is about the projects that contribute to reduced emissions and covers the projects that GoClimate primarily supports today. 

This category includes, for example, energy-efficient stoves that reduce the need for wood and thus deforestation. There are also projects in renewable energy that reduce the need for coal power plants and those that handle harmful methane gas by converting it into electricity, replacing fossil energy sources. More examples of these climate projects are available here.

2.1 Why We Support This Type of Project

There is scientific consensus that it is urgent to reduce the world’s emissions. Therefore, it is reasonable that at the present time, when there is so much left to do, the focus should simply be on supporting projects that reduce the world’s emissions.

2.1.1 The Technology is Already Here

To reduce emissions, both capital and technology dissemination are required. The necessary technology to cope with climate change already exists to a large extent, but it needs to be spread, financed, and implemented. The type of climate financing that we, our members, and customers contribute to plays a big role here; this is exactly what is needed to speed up the transition. But it’s not just a question of investing money, the projects must be effective and well thought out too.

2.2 Challenges with These Types of Projects

The climate benefit of the projects is often calculated based on hypothetical scenarios, which can be problematic. Changed subsidies, norms, and knowledge levels can affect the projects over time. Some projects may no longer need support due to technical development and price reductions in renewable energy. However, the role of climate financing is crucial. It has historically contributed to economies of scale and price reductions, meaning that some projects no longer need the same support. To manage these dynamic factors, one can choose to support newer projects or specific years.

Despite the complexity of these projects, we are convinced that they can be supported effectively, especially if the right type of project is chosen.

2.3 Projects We Do Not Support in This Category

In this category are projects that we consider to be less efficient or problematic. For example, we do not support the construction of large-scale hydroelectric power plants, as they require large land areas and can have a negative impact on both the environment and local communities.

New renewable energy projects in countries not on the UN’s list of least developed countries are also not certified according to the standard – Gold Standard – that we go by. These projects are often considered to not need financial support to the same extent as they did in the past.

However, it is important to understand the climate credit market and how it affects the lifespan and financing of projects. We still support certain energy projects that would not be certified today, because if we stop supporting certain projects that were certified because climate financing was deemed necessary earlier, it could undermine the confidence in the climate credit market and make it more difficult for future projects to get financing.

We also do not support local projects in Sweden, as the country already has access to financing and relatively low climate emissions compared to other regions. Our strategy is to support projects where they can have the greatest positive climate impact. Even though projects like solar cell support in Sweden can be beneficial, financing does more good when used in other countries, for example, those with a higher mix of fossil fuel sources in their electricity mix.

Please get in touch ([email protected]) if you think there’s anything we’ve missed; we are always open to learning more!

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

Why should we care about the new climate science report that has gone out?

A new report titled “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” from the IPCC was published this Monday, 28th Feb 2022. But why should we care about it? And what does it mean to us?

Let’s start by learning what the IPCC is

IPCC stands for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is an independent body of the UN that provides policymakers and the world with science around climate change and how it affects us. The panel reviews research of multiple scientists around the world assesses it, condenses it, and publishes it for people to understand where we are, what we are doing and what we need to do.

So, what does the report say? and why should I care?

The report hits closer and harder than other reports. It speaks about how people’s lives and the natural world can continue to be affected by a changing climate in different parts of the world and how we can respond to those impacts. It lets us know that we need to continue mobilizing, we need to work together, we need to cut emissions boldly and fast, and we need to adapt appropriately. One thing is left clear, we are experiencing climate change impacts today, the whole world will continue to feel them, and billions will feel them harder than others. And, how much and how fast we reduce emissions will determine how heavily we will be hit; “every small increase in warming will result in increased risks.” said the IPCC co-chair.[1]

The report tells us what lies ahead if we continue as we are. We will face significant human losses, economic disruptance, loss of biodiversity, and more. It invites us to create a climate-resilient development where we reduce climate risks, reduce greenhouse emissions, enhance biodiversity and achieve the sustainable development goals.

Is there anything for me to do?

As a business:

  • Learn about your climate impact.

Understand the number of emissions you are responsible for and which ones will be more effective to reduce. Later, plan how to reduce them, set a reduction target, and work to become NetZero.

  • Support projects that avoid the emission of greenhouse gases

Support others working to prevent emissions from going to the atmosphere through financial support. This will help reduce the amount of GHG in the atmosphere. You can also support projects that remove them from the atmosphere.

  • Engage your supply chain

Help create a snowball of action by inspiring your suppliers to reduce their emissions.

  • Engage with the local governments your offices are located in

Different local governments are taking action and need business allies to implement their ideas. Learn about what your local government is doing and engage with them

As an individual:

  • Learn how you can reduce your emissions

Read some of our climate tips and get inspiration

  • Learn about climate justice

Climate change will not affect everyone in the world equally. Instead, already socially vulnerable communities will be the ones more affected. So we should work for a better future for everyone, not just a few.

  • Vote sustainably and hold your politicians accountable

As the ‘managers’ of our society, governments have a big role to play. Whoever is in the driving seat can make a big difference in how fast and well we adapt and reduce emissions. Think about this when deciding who to vote for and hold them accountable when in office. read more

Remarks from the report

  • Climate change affects people unequally. It will significantly affect Central and South America, parts of Africa, South Asia, the Artic, and Small Islands.
  • There is a small window for us to act; we must not miss it.
  • There is a tipping point for ecosystems and social systems from which we will not return if we reach them. If reached, it is possible we won’t be able to adapt.
  • We should prioritize adaptation. Finance has to be prioritized for it.
  • Maladaptation is a thing. We have implemented measures that falsely reduce risks and that emit greenhouse gases.
  • Improving social infrastructures such as health systems is part of adapting to climate change
  • Nature is our friend (it has always been, but let’s really take it in). Nature is key to adaptation and an essential component for keeping emissions in the ground.

[1] IPCC Press Conference – Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation & Vulnerability – YouTube

AR6 Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability — IPCC

Posted on

Climate Impact and Safe Drinking Water with Nazava Water Filters

Together with our amazing members, GoClimate have now offset another 9087 ton CO2eq in the Gold Standard certified project Nazava Water Filters.

According to the World Economic Forum, lack of access to safe drinking water is one of the biggest threats to humanity today. The Nazava project is a social enterprise that sells affordable ceramic water filters to low-income households in Indonesia (where the lack of clean water is a wide-spread problem) enabling access to safe drinking water. The project also leads to reduced CO2 emissions as well as a number of other benefits, both on a global and a local level.

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this!

Difficulties for low-income households to get water

The positive impact safe drinking water has on public health is pretty obvious. It prevents disease and even death. The conventional methods for obtaining drinking water involve fetching, transporting and storing water and then boiling it to make it safe enough to drink. The fact that the water often needs to be transported a long way and to then be stored for a long period of time, means that the risk of it being contaminated is large, even if the water was clean at the point of fetching. Boiling is an energy intensive and time-consuming purification method, often involving burning wood or charcoal. In cases where fetching drinking water is not an option, low-income households are left to spend money on buying water, leading to an unsustainable financial situation.

The Nazava Water Filter project saves CO2 

The Nazava Water Filter project leads to a reduction in GHG emissions, as burning wood or fossil fuel for cleaning water is omitted. The project activity has the potential to give an annual average CO2 emission reduction of up to 372,774 t CO2e over a 10 year period. This yearly reduction in energy is comparable to one year’s CO2 emissions from 5 000 Swedish households.

The Filter

The technology used for this specific filter is a ceramic type that produces water of safe drinking water quality. The Nazava Water Filters remove 99.9% of bacteria as tested by WHO – a result honoring the name Nazava, which is arabic for “cleanliness”. The filters are easy to use and sold at an affordable price, making them accessible for the low-income households affected.  The filters can be used thousands of times before they need to be replaced, making this technique a highly sustainable one.

Other important benefits

The positive impact of access to safe drinking water and the great climate impact is probably pretty clear by now, but the Nazava project keeps on giving with it’s many other social and economic benefits!

Not having to carry water a long way reduces the risk of wear and tear. Not having to boil water reduces the indoor air pollution from burning wood, which is a health risk important to avoid.

The project also creates value for the local community in important ways. Buying and using the filters, low-income households saves the cost for buying wood or water, and as well as saves the labour spent on fetching and preparing the water. User surveys show that this is welcomed as a considerable advantage and the project has been well received. 

The selling and distribution is carried out by a network of informal resellers or micro-entrepreneurs, many of which are women, working under the brand name Nazava Water Filters. 

The Nazava project has a positive impact on many of the UN Sustainability Goals – numbers 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, and 15 (No poverty, Good Health and Wellbeing, Gender equality, Good Health and sanitation, Decent work and economic growth, Climate action and Life on land).

Posted on

A survey on the view of the individual carbon footprint, climate action taken and GoClimate

During the summer 2021, we conducted a survey among all our members who offset their carbon footprint with GoClimate. 552 people participated, corresponding to 12% of our members at that point in time.

GoClimate members are truly active climate change fighters

25-30% of GoClimate members take climate action that goes far beyond their own lifestyle changes and climate funding contributions. In response to the question “In the last three years, have you done any of the following?”, this is the result:

30% of GoClimate members state that they have participated in climate protests, 71% have signed climate petitions, 27% have been in contact with politicians or their municipality with climate-related issues, 25% have asked their workplace or school about their climate work, 21% have contacted a store or a brand about their sustainability work and 77% has made a major lifestyle change like swapping to a more climate-friendly diet, stopped flying or switching fossil cars to electric ones or bicycles.

This is climate action taken by our members on top of their monthly contribution to important climate financing to move away from fossil based energy systems among others.

The view of one’s own climate footprint

In response to the question of how our members view their personal carbon footprint, 74% states that they are working actively to reduce their footprint. 8% say that they would like to, but don’t know how. Another 7% say that they already have a low footprint and have a hard time lowering it more. 8% say that they are not working actively with reducing their footprint. Several members state that it is difficult to change diet and travel habits completely.

The next focus of GoClimate

We gave eleven suggestions on what the GoClimate team could focus on in the future. The suggestions that got the most votes were a carbon budget tool for individuals (57%), that GoClimate increase the focus on influencing politicians and society through creating opinion, petitions and debate articles (55%), a feature that displays exactly which climate projects a member personally has supported and with how much (53%), individualized tips to help reduce a member’s footprint (48%) and the possibility to compare climate footprints from year to year (39%).

Growing the GoClimate community

The majority of the respondents found out about us via recommendations and social media. So please keep discussing the climate with friends, tell them about us and share blog posts and our infographics on Instagram.

Here you can find the results of the 2019 and 2020  member survey on carbon footprint, carbon offsetting and GoClimate.

Posted on

Petitions

Supporting different causes by signing petitions can be a very powerful and easy way of creating change. We have collected active petitions in different areas of the world – browse our suggestions below and get ready to make a difference!

Europe
– Bundesbank, don’t stand against climate action! (350.org)
– Stop big polluters from suing our governments (Wemove.eu)

Global

– Protect the oceans (Greenpeace)
– Raise your voice for Climate Justice – (Greenpeace International)
– Support a #justrecovery (350.org)

–Support making Ecocide an international crime

– Deutsche Bank: Drop EACOP!

Sweden

– Våra Barns Klimat- bli ditt barns röst för klimatet!

– Skydda våra världshav (Greenpeace)

– Skydda svensk skog (Greenpeace)

– Så kan du stoppa naturförstörelse från att hamna i din varukorg – och skydda vår natur – Greenpeace Sweden

UK

– Tell Tesco: Stop forest destruction (Greenpeace)

– Put pressure on the fossil fuel industry by joining the call for climate justice (Greenpeace)

US
– Tell President Biden: Ban New Oil and Gas Permits on Public Lands and Waters – (Greenpeace)

– Demand an end to human rights violations and the destruction of the Amazon rainforest (Greenpeace)

– Big oil polluters should pay, not people (Greenpeace)

Posted on

The carbon footprint from film making

What’s the carbon footprint from film production and the movie industry? Intrigued by finding out the answer, we at GoClimate partnered up with some of the best freeskiers in the world, The Bunch, to calculate the carbon footprint of their seventh movie Is there time for matching socks. And started to dig into the emissions of the world of film making.

What is the carbon footprint of the film industry? Photo: Donald Edgar

Findings – carbon emissions from creating films

What we found out is that film productions in general do unfortunately not map their carbon footprint. Or, in the cases where the carbon footprint has been calculated, the data has not been made public.

According to a Swedish study all big studios in the US track their carbon footprint, with a couple of them making it public. But, when we dug deeper into this, looking at the carbon footprint of Disney Studios in particular, only the emissions from The Walt Disney Company as a whole is presented. Numbers related to the film production are not separated and publicly available.

According to the Guardian (2020) the average film is estimated to produce 500 tonnes of CO2eq. The detailed data from the Swedish series Bäckström shows a carbon footprint of 240 tonnes CO2 for the full production, 40 tonnes per episode of 45 minutes.

We found data from a few recent wintersport films. Burton’s production, One World, had for example a carbon footprint of 1060 tonnes. 

Our calculations of The Bunch film production Is there time for matching socks ended up at 41 tonnes. To find out how they manage to keep the emissions so low compared to other films, click here. The full climate report for the film can be found here.

The carbon footprint of producing the film Is there time for matching socks was 41 tonnes.
Posted on

Best (climate) reads for lazy summer days!

Working hard to stop climate change and making the world a better place is great everyday life. But even heroes need holidays, to recharge the batteries and enjoy the small things around us. Stopping to smell a flower, having a cup of coffee in no rush at all, maybe even turning off the phone. Taking a break from the digital world can be so refreshing! And when you do that, what better way to spend time than with a book? We at GoClimate have a diverse taste in books, but we decided to present some related to climate change.

GoClimate enjoying books!

(Two years ago we did another blog post about this, find it HERE)

The Great Derangement: Climate Change and the Unthinkable by Amitav Gosh. The Indian novelist wrote his first non-fictional book in 20 years on the topic of climate change, highlighting the cultural shift that is needed to address this issue. Climate chance is not too unrealistic to be portrayed in popculture anymore.

The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural Story by Elizabeth Kolbert (US). This book has been very praised for how it narrates the story of the process we are currently living in, and how humans are the protagonists in this.

The Sixth Extinction

What We Think About When We Try Not To Think About Global Warming: Toward a New Psychology of Climate Action by Per Espen Stoknes. This is perhaps the most facts-y book on the list, where the Norwegian Psychologist identifies psychological barriers to climate action, and addresses them with concrete strategies. Now that we know what we know, how do we handle that? He also gave a TED talk on the topic!

This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate and On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal by Naomi Klein (Canada). This Changes everything was published in 2016, presenting a strong argument for the links between climate change and the current free market economy. This book has had a monumental impact on the climate movement, and its sequel is explaining how bold climate action can be a blueprint for a just and thriving society.

We Are the Weather: Saving the Planet Begins at Breakfast  by Jonathan Safron Foer. This American author has previously produced both fiction and the arguably best book on veganism: Eating Animals. The book is a peculiar and personal take on climate change and our diets, and worth it because the writing and randomly connected thoughts are so poignant.

We are the Weather

Oryx and Crake and The year of the Flood by Margaret Atwood (Canada). Known for an extensive body of literature (for example, The Handmaid’s Tale), Atwood is building the Maddaddam Trilogy on a backdrop of climate change. Perhaps more relaxing than the fact-filled books!

Tentacle by Rita Indiana (Dominican Rep). Not all climate books are non-fiction! This is a novel built on Caribbean storytelling, covering climate change, Yoruba rituals, time travel, queer politics, poverty, sex, colonialism and contemporary art. Try something new!

Tentacle

What are you reading this summer? Drop us a comment below!