Who Pays to Cool the Planet?
Why We Need Distributed Climate Finance
When we kicked off the carbon removal industry, we had something (sort of) tangible to sell: a tonne of carbon removed. It has not been easy to build that market, but at least we had a unit. With global cooling interventions, we face a fundamentally different challenge. Who exactly pays to brighten marine clouds? What's the price for preserving an ice sheet? How do you create a market for preventing monsoon disruption?
The answer isn't as simple as creating "cooling credits." I actually believe that's exactly the wrong approach. As I've written in past posts, it's a challenge to even get carbon removal credits working. Carbon credits rely on a multi-decade history of regional and global market experiments, with local, national, and international policy frameworks to support it. Before we could build a viable voluntary carbon market, first came the Kyoto Protocol, the Clean Development Mechanism, and so on.
Global cooling efforts have little to no equivalent foundational policy support. And they are even less legible to corporate buyers than carbon. Besides, carbon credits are not moving fast enough even with tens of billions of dollars invested. So no, I do not think that cooling credits will accomplish the goal of financing global climate interventions. Rather than just tacking on to what is currently being done, we should approach this problem from a first principles perspective.
Given that the cooling challenge is exponentially more complex than carbon removal, we must assume that it will take more time to get off the ground and make measurable progress. Yet despite this complexity, we need to move fast. The climate isn't waiting for us to figure out perfect funding mechanisms.
Sidenote: When I say "expand", I mean first we must set up more monitoring of earth systems and potential tipping points in addition to controlled research as outlined in the previous post in this series. Whether or not interventions should actually take place is a decision to be made later.
The Current Funding Reality: Three Lanes with Critical Gaps
Let's examine how major global initiatives typically get funded, and where cooling interventions currently fit:
Government funding brings democratic legitimacy and deep pockets. Think of the smallpox eradication campaign – only governments could coordinate across borders and sustain decades-long efforts. The UK's Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) is funding efforts ranging from governance research to marine cloud brightening trials. But governments are slow, bureaucratic, and subject to election cycles. One administration funds climate research; the next might slash it entirely.
Philanthropic funding offers risk tolerance and agility. Foundations can fund controversial research that governments won't touch. Major foundations are currently funding modeling studies and small-scale experiments. But they're limited in scale, subject to donor interests, and often create pilot projects that never graduate to implementation.
Private capital brings speed and efficiency. The COVID vaccines showed how quickly private companies can move when incentives align. But unlike carbon removal, which eventually attracted corporate buyers and venture capital, cooling interventions have virtually no private capital engagement. The reason is obvious – there's no clear product to sell, no obvious buyer to court.
Recently SRM360 published a really helpful analysis of funding into solar radiation management (which captures a large proportion of cooling research and gives a sense of the overall universe):
Look closely at where this funding comes from: philanthropic foundations and government R&D budgets. That's basically it.
One other factor that matters a lot is where the funding is going. Countries in the Global North more or less created this situation, while countries in the Global South are going to be most affected by the worst effects of climate change. And where does the funding currently go?
The very people most impacted are not being funded to collaborate or participate in this global coordination problem at any real scale. Efforts like the Degrees Modelling Fund are working to change this.
Why These Three Lanes Can't Move Fast Enough
You might think: "Eventually we'll need something like a Paris Agreement for geoengineering, so let's wait for that international framework." This is both true and dangerous.
Yes, we'll eventually need international coordination, liability frameworks, and governance structures that only governments can provide. But waiting for that consensus before advancing research is like waiting for perfect building codes before putting out a fire.
The current approach – philanthropic funding plus government R&D – is laying important groundwork. There needs to be validation and monitoring and research so that policymakers have something to work with. Even discussing who is responsible for implementing SAI or when they should retreat from deployment is a fool's errand right now because we don't know enough. But this whole category is moving at an academic pace while the climate operates on exponential timelines. We need acceleration, not just progress.
Each funding lane has critical gaps that compound the problem:
Government funding is subject to political cycles and bureaucratic speed
Philanthropic funding lacks the scale for global coordination
Private capital has no clear profit model to engage
The Missing Fourth Lane: Distributed Climate Finance
Here I argue that we need something new: a fourth funding lane that's distributed, decentralized, grassroots-driven, and radically transparent. Not to replace the others, but to fill critical gaps they can't address.
What would this look like? Imagine research funding that:
Operates transparently, with every decision and result visible (and ideally reproducible) on public ledgers
Enables direct participation from affected communities – Pacific Island nations, Arctic peoples, African countries, the Global South – not just wealthy nations making decisions for them
Moves at internet speed, not government pace
Creates self-sustaining funding mechanisms that don't depend on political winds
Sources capital from anyone, anywhere, regardless of their being in the "right" communities
This isn't fantasy. We have new and useful tools: AI for coordination, cryptocurrency for funding, smart contracts for governance, blockchain for transparency. Decentralized finance (DeFi) has already mobilized over $100 billion globally through transparent, on-chain mechanisms, proving these tools can work at scale.
But this isn't just about "using crypto". Crypto is one component of what I'm imagining here—a source of capital that is distributed—but I also want to see capital coming from individuals, organizations and governments, and more. I think a better term for this funding lane might be Distributed Climate Finance (DCF). It should reflect that it is multi-source, focused on transparency, and aims to network with many groups around the world. There are many groups and participants in this DCF ecosystem already, and I am proposing that we name it and elevate it as a funding category.
The scope of this challenge is utterly enormous—beyond anything we've ever attempted before. That scope requires that we deploy every useful tool we have, even the most recently developed social technologies.
Why Transparency Builds Trust and Enables Coordination
The reality is that cooling interventions face enormous public skepticism. The words "solar geoengineering" trigger fears of chemtrails and weather control. This skepticism isn't irrational – it's a healthy response to technologies that could affect everyone on Earth.
The traditional approach of closed-door meetings and selective information release only feeds these fears. But radical transparency serves multiple critical purposes for distributed climate finance:
Builds public trust through verifiable transparency rather than institutional authority
Enables global collaboration by making all research immediately accessible
Creates accountability that transcends national borders
Allows affected communities to see exactly what's being done and why
We saw exactly what the opposite of this looked like during the pandemic. We all know how institutions lost their legitimacy when "experts" and leaders started sharing opinions based on ideology and politics instead of observable facts on the ground. Open and transparent capital is a critical component for building trust, and we have technology now that enforces transparency in every action. We should utilize it.
Imagine if every experiment, every result, every decision was visible on immutable public ledgers. Good results, bad results, uncertainties, raw data – all transparent. And not just transparent, but actively pushed out with communications strategies!
Integration, Not Competition
I'm not suggesting this DCF fourth lane replaces traditional funding. We need all four lanes working together, each optimized for what it does best:
Governments coordinate international agreements and provide liability frameworks
Philanthropy funds high-risk early research and ensures considerations of ethics and justice
Private capital scales proven approaches and drives efficiency
Distributed climate finance ensures transparency, enables grassroots participation, and maintains momentum regardless of political changes
Think of it as creating an antifragile ecosystem. When one funding source faces pressure, others can maintain progress. When governments cut funding, distributed mechanisms continue. When philanthropic interests shift, community-driven research persists.
Building the Foundation for What's Next
Distributed climate finance isn't just about funding – it's about creating the conditions for everything else. How do we eventually reach international agreements on cooling interventions if communities most affected haven't participated in the research? How do we build social license if the process remains opaque?
By creating transparent, participatory funding mechanisms now, we build the foundation for larger coordination efforts later. We validate the need, demonstrate the possibility, and create the constituency for more formal frameworks.
The climate crisis won't wait for perfect funding mechanisms or international consensus. While we build toward larger coordination frameworks, we need distributed, transparent funding systems that can move at climate speed—not bureaucratic pace.
We face a narrow window to develop cooling capabilities responsibly. That means building the financial infrastructure now—before we desperately need these interventions. A distributed climate finance lane could provide the transparency, participation, and sustained momentum that traditional funding sources can't deliver alone. The tools exist. The need is urgent. It's time to open that lane.
In my next article, I'll explore what governance without gridlock might look like for cooling interventions. But governance only works when built on a foundation of trust, transparency, and genuine participation. That's what this fourth funding lane could provide.
This is part 3 in my global cooling series. Parts 1 and 2 are below:
Break Glass, Cool Planet
Here's the unvarnished truth: We need to buy more time for carbon removal to scale, and that means we need global cooling interventions – soon. Not as a replacement for carbon removal, but as a bridge to give carbon solutions the runway they need.
The Risk-Impact Paradox of Global Cooling
This is part 2 in my series on global cooling interventions. You can find part 1 and an outline for the multi-part series here: