How to get the best bang for your climate buck

The Age

22-06-2025

Around the turn of this century, when global warming was still mostly a future threat rather than a present grim reality, it was common for people to debate whether it was real.
I recall reading something that accurately predicted the deniers' playbook in a climate change version of the stages of grief. First they would deny it was happening. Then they would acknowledge it was real, but deny that humans had caused it or could do anything about it. Next they would appear to acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic climate change and the need to act, but ensure the debate became bogged down in the minutiae of what to do about it.
Deniers still exist, but for the most part, we are in stage three. A case in point is the fact that we just fought an election in which a major party was proposing with a straight face that we should start a nationally owned, domestic nuclear energy program mostly from scratch. Whatever you think of nuclear energy, nearly all experts agreed this would cost too much, be too slow and keep ageing coal-fired power plants going well past the point of viability.
There are still endless debates that we don't need to have. No, electric vehicles will not 'ruin your weekend', as former prime minister Scott Morrison once said. Yes, wind turbines really are green. No, offshore wind farms don't kill whales.
Then there is legitimate policy debate. Taxpayer money is not a magic pudding, so governments wanting to fund emissions reduction or climate adaptation need to consider how to get the best bang for their climate buck.
This is a concern in the growing world of climate philanthropy, too – naturally, most donors want to ensure their money makes a difference. The question of how to get the best value becomes one of effective altruism – the philosophy that charity dollars should be spent where they will have the most impact.
Climate philanthropists sometimes join giving circles such as Groundswell Giving or Effective Altruism Australia's Environment Fund, which conduct rigorous research to determine where to direct donations for outsized impact. The recipients may be lesser known and far from home – such as Project InnerSpace, a US non-profit organisation focused on geothermal energy globally.
For governments, the decision of where to direct a climate budget is not made purely on climate grounds. Perhaps the most efficient way to reduce global greenhouse emissions is to pay to accelerate the shutdown of South Africa's notoriously dirty coal industry. But that's not going to fly for any Australian parliament because governments have a primary responsibility to their constituents. Good policy means both tackling climate change in a way that directly benefits citizens and residents of Australia.