Climate Mitigation Tool

An interactive learning experience to tackle rising emissions

Almost 200 solutions for funders to support as they seek to reduce climate-heating greenhouse gas emissions. Our interactive tool helps you to start your climate action journey today! 

Are you ready to take climate action, but still looking for the right entry point? Our Climate Mitigation Tool guides you in starting or strengthening your climate funding strategy, independent of the size of your budget or the level of your climate expertise. Use it as a starting point to get an overview of mitigation approaches, as an instrument to dig deeper into specific topics and solutions, or, if you are a climate funder already, to explore alternative measures to cut emissions.  What's special about this tool? It's the first interactive tool designed for philanthropists seeking to understand emission reductions, linking climate solutions and policy goals with philanthropic levers. The tool provides a first step in translating detailed technical information into opportunities for philanthropic action. Customisable features help you to personalise your experience and start your climate mitigation journey. 





Climate Mitigation Tool for PhilanthropyPlease enable JavaScript in your browserin order to use the tool.

How it works: Step by step

The tool comprises four circles, which allow you to quickly work your way through almost 200 solutions, which we have sourced from Project Drawdown and Climatestrike Switzerland (for more details on our methodology see FAQ). The first two circles focus on emission sources, grouped into sectors and systems, the third one highlights fields of action, and the fourth circle points towards concrete solutions (see definitions below). For every emission source, there is a solution ready for philanthropy to support. Create your individual portfolio of solutions by 1) browsing and exploring, 2) filtering and prioritising, and 3) building your own network in climate philanthropy. You find more details on each of the three steps below! 


Emission sources (circle 1-2)

Sectors (circle 2) categorise economic activities that cause emissions. They are an established description of the goods and services that directly emit greenhouse gases. Philanthropic interventions in the sectors category are likely to have a direct and measurable impact. Focusing on emission-producing sectors has become the most common entry point for funders interested in tackling emission reductions.   

Systems (circle 2) provide guardrails for all activity in society – they define the way that governance is conducted, the economy works and democracy is practiced. Unlike sectors, systems do not directly emit greenhouse gases, but they are responsible for the way in which the sectors work. They define the relationships, paradigms, and goals of individual sectors and thereby also have an influence on the emissions of sectors. Systems can either enable or hinder transformation across sectors. Approaching emissions reductions through a systems approach means to support new patterns, conditions and structures across all sectors.   

Fields of action (circle 3)

Fields of action give you orientation. They indicate where you can make a difference and specify what action really means in each sector and across systems.   


Concrete solutions (circle 4)

Concrete solutions are the specific intervention points you can get involved in. This is where you can apply philanthropic levers as a starting point for funding emission reduction projects. Curious to learn more about the solutions? The hyperlinks lead you to the original sources Project Drawdown and Climatestrike Switzerland. Please note that for Climatestrike, a more detailed description in English follows after an overview in German. Clicking on these links will give you access to more details about the respective solution and what makes it successful.


Step 1: Browse the tool and find issues you care about

The first step is all about exploring the different circles (inside to outside). Following your existing interests is a great way to start.

  • Circle 1-2: Dive into emission-producing sectors or the systems that shape how sectors function and interact. As we look towards funding strategies, the former leads to a direct and measurable impact, whereas the latter addresses root causes of the climate crisis.  

  • Circle 3: The fields of action show you how to move from these big, emission-producing sectors and cross-cutting systems to targeted action. Fields of action specify what it really means to reduce demand for resources, change the source of energy or protect nature. 

  • Circle 4: At the most detailed level, the tool showcases almost 200 concrete solutions for reducing emissions. They cover a breadth of technical and socio-political possibilities. The effectiveness of a concrete solution in fighting climate change strongly depends on the social, ecological, and economic context of the philanthropic intervention. 


Step 2: Prioritise how you would like to get engaged

Having browsed the solutions, it is time to customise your search and select your preferences.

  • Filter solutions according to philanthropic leverage: Apply one of the ten levers that range from strategic litigation against corporate mismanagement to shaping new narratives around a just transition. As you select a lever, relevant examples of applicable solutions across sectors and systems are highlighted. Please note: while most levers could be applied to most solutions – depending on the project design – the tool highlights examples for which the selected lever is particularly suitable.  

  • Save your choice: Double-clicking on a chosen solution will save it in your personal list of preferences on the left side of your screen. No matter whether you pick only a handful or dozens of solutions, what’s most important is to understand where you can get active given your individual interests in issues and levers. Going through this prioritisation process is the beginning of building your own funding strategy.



Step 3: Spread the word and build your network


Now that you have defined, adjusted, or validated your individual choice of solutions to cut emissions, what’s next?

An important next step on your journey is to exchange ideas with peers and experts. Besides getting active yourself, the most important thing you can do is to speak about opportunities for cutting emissions with others. Sharing what has worked, the challenges on your way, as well as your personal hopes can encourage others to start their own journey too.

Besides the exchange with peers, making use of existing infrastructure can help you to move beyond this tool and find projects and organisations that fit your selected solution(s) and preferred lever(s). 

Below, we have compiled a short list of resources that help you to take your next steps! We also advise you to store your personal list of preferred solutions (via QR code or 'save link' option), so you can easily share it with others and revisit it as you progress on your journey of climate philanthropy.  



Next steps to guide your journey


The following steps and resources will further guide you on your journey towards funding climate action:  

We thank Project Drawdown and Climatestrike Switzerland for their amazing work. Project Drawdown's Table of Solutions and Climatestrike Switzerland's Catalogue of Measures (Maßnahmenkatalog) are publicly available sources that form the basis for the data used in our Climate Mitigation Tool.




Our FAQ provides answers to central questions about the content of the tool and how it was developed. It’s a living document - we will populate it successively as feedback reaches us.



What is the single best solution to reduce emissions? 

The honest answer is that there is none. All actions suggested in this framework are only effective as part of a wider strategy that includes several solutions, each of which could, individually, only lead to incremental reduction.  


Why is the potential for emissions reductions of each solution not quantified? 

1) Although the quantification of the reduction potential for individual interventions is possible, the calculations behind different interventions are not easily aligned. Hence these qualifications become tenuous when many very different interventions are portrayed next to each other. Moreover, we would like to emphasize solutions that are realistic and can be implemented quickly rather than those that have a high theoretical potential to reduce emissions.  

2) Focussing on emission reduction potential distracts from the fact that there is no silver bullet. Climate change can best be tackled quickly if we implement many solutions, as small as they may be, at the same time. The biggest potential for carbon reduction loses relevance once we realise that we must implement all available solutions.  

3) When we quantify emissions reductions of different solutions, we are normally talking about potential. But this does not speak to the efficacy of philanthropic intervention in a concrete year and a specific location. An in-depth analysis of the combination of timing, region, lever and solution is necessary to actually determine the (potential) impact of a philanthropic intervention. 


Why are adaptation solutions not included? 

There are multiple solutions available to reduce emissions (mitigation) and adapt to the impacts of climate change (adaptation). To be able to provide an easily accessible overview of solutions, we have decided to separate these two issues. We are planning to develop a separate tool for adaptation once resources allow us to do so. 


Why is carbon capture and storage not included as a solution? 

Carbon capture and storage technology is currently at a development stage and not yet viable at scale. Beyond unresolved technological questions, the governance of carbon capture and storage technology is still being debated. Methodologically speaking, we also excluded this type of technology because our two sources do not include them.  


Why have you allocated only a small number of philanthropic levers per solution? Is it not the case that all levers are relevant to all solutions? 

In principle, it is possible to approach most solutions using the whole spectrum of philanthropic levers. However, some levers lend themselves more to certain solutions than others. We have selected one or two levers per solution because these are the levers that most easily match the selected solution. We deduced the selection from the description of the specific solution by Project Drawdown and Climatestrike Switzerland. Applying other levers to the same solution can definitely be impactful but may be more challenging regarding e.g. their potential for scale, existing work to build on, or the variety of stakeholders that need to be engaged.  


How did you source and select the solutions? 

We have focused on two sources that make for some of the most comprehensible, publicly available catalogues of concrete solutions to cut greenhouse gas emissions. These are a) the Table of Solutions by Project Drawdown (as of March 2021) and b) the Maßnahmenkatalog by Climatestrike Switzerland (as of March 2021). The two frameworks are complementary as the former focuses on emission reduction aims and technical measures to achieve them, and the latter on socio-political measures. Moreover, Project Drawdown’s solutions are based on consolidated expert scenarios for mitigation whereas those by ClimateStrike Switzerland have been generated bottom-up through public deliberation.  

Upon further development of the tool, we will include additional catalogues of solutions. If you would like to suggest such comprehensive catalogues, please get in touch with us. 

In some cases, we decided to exclude certain solutions that are part of the two above mentioned catalogues. Below, you find a list of these solutions as well as an explanation for why we have not included them.  

All solutions outlined by Project Drawdown have been included as part of our framework’s ‘sectors’, apart from:  

  • “Building retrofitting” -> this comprises solutions that are already included as individual measures (e.g. better insulation or improved heating and cooling equipment). 

All solutions from chapters 2-6 of Climatestrike Switzerland have been included as part of our framework’s ‘sectors’, apart from the following, which are too specific to Switzerland:  

  • ‘2.14 Development of the Rhine harbours in Basel’  

  • ‘5.3 Auctioning of Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) for large renewable energy plants’  

  • ‘9.12 Democratic rights for all residents in Switzerland’ 

All solutions by Climatestrike Switzerland from chapters 1 and 7-12 have been included as part of our framework’s ‘systems’, apart from:  

  • ‘1.1 Moratorium on new infrastructure till 2030‘ -> included in our framework’s section on sectors. 

  • ‘12.2 Sustainable alternatives for tourism’ -> this solution is too specifically geared towards alpine tourism and skiing.  

  • ‘12.3 Legal framework for supporting climate refugees’ -> missing link to climate mitigation. 

  • ‘9.1 Public programme on green jobs’ -> this is cross-sectoral but not systemic and not  suitable for philanthropic intervention 

  • ‘9.10 Erasing flat rate taxation’-> too specific to the Swiss context, and source states explicitly that there will be no direct consequences for emissions. 

  • ‘9.4 Strengthening the care sector’ -> no relevant connection to emission reduction, rather adaptation 

  • ‘12.1 Increasing the resilience of the health system’ -> no relevant connection to emission reduction, rather adaptation 

We combined some solutions from the two sources when they referred to the same measures. These include:  

  • ‘3.4 Adapt existing laws and building regulations to net zero’ (Climatestrike Switzerland) + ‘Net-zero buildings’ (Project Drawdown) 

  • ‘Car-free cities’ (Project Drawdown) + ‘2.4 Car-free cities’ (Climatestrike Switzerland) 

  • ‘Walkable cities’ (Project Drawdown) + ‘3.11 Create framework conditions for walkable cities’ (Climatestrike Switzerland) 

  • ‘Distributed Solar Photovoltaics’ (Project Drawdown) + ‘5.2 Mandatory installation of solar panels on suitable roofs’ (Climatestrike Switzerland) 

  • ‘Nutrient Management’ (Project Drawdown) + ‘6.30 Tax on nitrogen use beyond plant demand & upper limit for the use of synthetic fertilizers’ (Climatestrike Switzerland) 

  • ‘Utility-scale energy storage’ (Project Drawdown) + ‘5.6 Exemption from grid charges for storage technologies’ (Climatestrike Switzerland) 

  • ‘5.7 Support the installation of open-space solar PV (where sensible)’ (Climatestrike Switzerland) + ‘Utility-scale photovoltaics’ (Project Drawdown) 

  • ‘High-speed rail’ (Project Drawdown) + ‘2.28 Expansion of alternatives to aviation’ (Climatestrike Switzerland) -> though the later also includes more local public transport measures, the final aim is to foster alternatives for long-distance journeys. 

  • ‘System of rice intensification’ + ‘improved rice production’ -> they are both from Project Drawdown but overlap significantly 

  • ‘6.18 Improve rights and working conditions of farmers’ + ‘6.19 Increase number of people working in the agricultural sector’ -> they are both from Climatestrike Switzerland but overlap significantly 

  • ‘6.29 Promote low-input agriculture’ (Climatestrike Switzerland) was excluded as other solutions account for this solution in more concrete ways (e.g. Project Drawdown’s ‘Managed grazing’ or ‘Perennial staple crops’). 

  • ‘Plant rich diets’ (Project Drawdown) is excluded as the specific solutions behind it are reflected in ‘6.12 Higher taxes on animal-based food’ as well as ‘6.27 Promote alternatives to animal proteins’ (both Climatestrike Switzerland).  


Get in touch


If you have any questions or remarks about the tool, please get in touch with Johannes Lundershausen.