A Cost Effective Charity

Boys in Cool Earth's PNG partnership

Since its inception in 2007, Cool Earth has been obsessed with cost-effectiveness. It may have something to do with being founded by a businessman and a politician. Either way, making sure that donors got the most impact possible has been the cornerstone of our operations from day one.

It helps that we are small. And that our mission is single-minded.

Climate change is real and it’s happening now. Deforestation is a major contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions and therefore to climate change.1 Reducing deforestation and managing forests sustainably has been recognised by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as among the “…most cost-effective mitigation options…” for reducing emissions. That’s because forest biomass stores large amounts of carbon – approximately 272 tonnes per acre.234. This carbon is released into the atmosphere when forest is destroyed.

Peru River View

Lots of organisations claim to prevent deforestation. But we’ve got a secret weapon that makes what we do even more effective. People.

There’s a wealth  of research that proves that community-led conservation is more effective than other methods at keeping trees standing.5 It’s what makes us different and it’s why Giving What We Can, a leading charity evaluator also obsessed with cost-effectiveness, has rated us top for mitigating climate change.

“Cool Earth mitigates climate change more cost-effectively than any other charities working on direct mitigation… we are confident that Cool Earth is one of the most effective charities in this area.”6

By supporting Cool Earth, you can be certain that you’re making the biggest impact possible to prevent climate change. And because we’re always learning and refining our model, we’ll become even more cost effective as time goes on.

Quick Donation Page

  1. AR5 Synthesis Report – Climate Change 2014 – IPCC.” 2015. 15 Apr. 2016

  2. Kearsley, Elizabeth et al. “Conventional tree height–diameter relationships significantly overestimate aboveground carbon stocks in the Central Congo Basin.” Nature communications 4 (2013).





  3. Vincent, John B et al. “Forest carbon in lowland Papua New Guinea: Local variation and the importance of small trees.” Austral ecology 40.2 (2015): 151-159.

  4. Saatchi, Sassan S et al. “Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across three continents.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108.24 (2011): 9899-9904.

  5. Porter-Bolland, Luciana et al. “Community managed forests and forest protected areas: An assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics.” Forest ecology and management 268 (2012): 6-17.

  6. Giving What We Can report on Cool Earth, 2016

© Cool Earth 2018 | Site by Venn Creative