All In: Strategies for Climate Philanthropists in a New Political Landscape

The 2024 U.S. presidential election has ushered in a Republican trifecta that represents a critical moment for climate change. Though we now face a challenging landscape, this is far from an “everything is lost” moment—there are still many opportunities for climate philanthropists to continue making progress.

We conducted deep-dive research into the landscape of policy levers that will be relevant for climate under the incoming administration, pulling together insights from expert conversations, hundreds of published sources, and dozens of research studies on the emissions effects of potential policy changes.

This report presents the first systematic mapping of climate philanthropy priorities in a changed world: an in-depth examination of the implications of the new political landscape and what these suggest about priorities for philanthropic action.

How can philanthropists meet the moment?

We make three key recommendations for climate philanthropists that will be critical for achieving impact in 2025 and beyond:

1. Break free from myopic ways of defining progress. Although the U.S. is responsible for a sizable share of historic emissions, projections show that it will be directly responsible for at most 10% of global emissions in the 21st century. Yet the dominant frame for evaluating climate policies focuses on their direct impact on short-term domestic emissions. Climate change is a global and multi-decadal challenge, and we need to evaluate policies based on their long-term, global effects—which means considering factors like the acceleration of clean energy technology through government policy.
2. Evolve beyond old playbooks. The landscape during President Trump’s second term will look fundamentally different than it did during his first. There has been substantial progress on federal climate policy, including the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Moreover, some of the most impactful climate policy opportunities—notably permitting reform—are now strongly aligned with Republican priorities. This means that, rather than shifting our focus to state and local action the way we did in 2016, we can now concentrate on defending past progress and promoting bipartisan action at the federal level.
3. Broaden climate coalitions. Republicans hold many values that are aligned and compatible with climate progress, such as a focus on energy abundance and industrial competitiveness. The right-of-center climate ecosystem is more developed than it has ever been before, but it still only receives $30M of philanthropic resources, compared to over $300M for left-of-center climate organizations. We win by engaging everyone who is serious about making climate progress, regardless of partisan affiliations.

Which policy levers should we focus on?

Three policy choices typically dominate the news on the climate implications of the incoming Trump administration: the future of the IRA (with a particular focus on protecting the IRA’s tax credits), permitting reform (which will help accelerate the building of energy infrastructure), and the administration’s expansion of fossil fuel production (such as attempts to roll back the EPA’s pollution and fuel efficiency regulations).

These policies receive the most attention because they’ll likely have the greatest impact on domestic emissions in the short term. But when we examine this question through the lens of global cumulative emissions rather than short-term domestic effects, several crucial new insights emerge:

• The components of the IRA that matter in the short term are not the only ones that matter in the big picture. While wind, solar, and EV tax credits drive the most near-term domestic emissions reductions, these are already mature technologies, which will continue making an impact with or without tax credits. Instead, tech-neutral credits supporting nascent technologies like enhanced geothermal and advanced nuclear are more likely to make a major difference in long-term emissions. These policies must be defended in order to make new clean energy technologies a reality.
• Permitting reform represents a major offensive opportunity in the long term as well as the short term, because in addition to reducing short-term emissions, it could also reduce barriers to energy innovation, particularly for emerging technologies. Cost reductions in new energy technologies occur as new capacity is built—and in order for that to happen, it must be possible to build.
• Preventing regulatory rollbacks that will unleash more fossil fuel production, while important, should not be a priority for additional action. A future Democratic administration would repeal many of the Trump administration’s regulatory rollbacks—and, since fossil fuel producers already anticipate and plan around those likely decisions, the emissions effects of the proposed rollbacks will be less significant than those we see in typical models.

Taking a global view also reveals some underappreciated levers that could be crucial from a global perspective, which expands the positive opportunity space for climate philanthropists to make progress. These include:

• Reauthorizing and advancing energy innovation policies, including bipartisan achievements like the Energy Act of 2020, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the CHIPS and Science Act. These policies are significant for global emissions and align with many bipartisan priorities, given that they help the U.S. remain the largest innovator in key decarbonization technologies.
• Maintaining and further developing the Department of Energy’s programs, such as the Loan Programs Office (LPO), which is an important $400B vehicle for commercializing new technologies, as well as the earlier-stage research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) programs of the DOE. While less interested in climate, the Trump administration is interested in both international energy dominance and government efficiency, and there is positive potential for progress here.

Understanding which policy levers to prioritize requires looking beyond just their relative importance—we also need to consider how other philanthropists are already choosing to deploy their resources. Many funders and organizations are now focusing on litigation against the federal government. Many others are reflexively shifting their support to state-level action. Most notably, the field is overwhelmingly supporting left-of-center climate groups. Though these strategies are all necessary for climate progress, they also create opportunities for outsized impact when we focus on areas that are more neglected but equally vital.

Climate philanthropists face a defining choice. We can cling to familiar strategies and partisan divides, or we can adapt our approach to embrace the unique opportunities and challenges of 2025. This report provides an analytical foundation for philanthropists to rise to the occasion and navigate the most promising new pathways to climate impact.