Loading…
· Public charity
CENTER FOR CARBON REMOVAL
Carbon180's mission is to design and champion equitable, science-based policies that bring carbon removal solutions to gigatone scale.
$1.9M
Granted FY2024
6
Grants
5
Communities
$1.2M
Largest
01What you fund
0197% classified
What you funded, over time
Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY2019–2024.
Environment$3.0MCivil Rights$350kEducation$160kCommunity Improvement$150kOther$110k
02beneath the categories
Past the labels — and the year it shifted
Beneath the NTEE codes, this is what the grant descriptions actually say.
…and in their own words, year by year
2019
—
2020
—
2022
federal cdrcdr policyenvironmental justice
2023
environmental justice
2024
environmental justice
Words distinctive to each year’s grant purposes (TF-IDF) · event-driven terms in cyan.
03FY2024 · 6 grants
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k1 grant · $10k
- $50k–250k4 grants · $650k
- $250k+1 grant · $1.2M
$150,000
Median grant
5
States reached
$25M
Total assets
Largest grants
- MULTIPLIER$1,217,514
- BLUEGREEN ALLIANCE FOUNDATION$200,000
- RESTORE THE DELTA$150,000
- THE INSTITUTE FOR ENHANCED EQUITY$150,000
- UNTIL JUSTICE$150,000
- SEEC INSTITUTE$10,000
02The need
04
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
show:
Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY19–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 13% — the area typically sits at 11%. 58% of your dollars reach neighborhoods with above-average need. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA, United Way ALICE — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
03Your edge
repeat funding
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
47%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$1.8M · 5 repeat orgs$2.0M to everyone else
5 repeat relationships — 1 still active in FY2024, 4 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Re-uppedFunded once
Organizations
5
3
Total granted
$1.8M
$310k
Median revenue growth · since first grant
+91%
+1215%
Still filing today
100%
67%
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 11% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.7M went to new ones.
RenewedFirst-time
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
EnvironmentCivil RightsEducationCommunity ImprovementOther
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as “new.” Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.
Backed again, and grew
- BABLUEGREEN ALLIANCE FOUNDATION2× · 2022–2024 · $420k · revenue +34%
- BMBLACK MILLENIALS 4 FLINT2× · 2022–2023 · $400k · revenue +91% · 28% of their budget
- AVAPPALACHAIN VOICES2× · 2022–2023 · $400k · revenue +189%
Funded once
- DFDATA FOR THE SOCIAL GOOD EDUCATION FUNDgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $200k · revenue +1215% · 44% of their budget
- CCarbonPlanone grant, 2020 · $100k
- OMOne Montanaone grant, 2019 · $10k · revenue -103%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
04Your field
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
1
California Environmental Justice Alliance
Our mission is to fight against fossil fuel executives and industries that have turned our communities into dumping grounds for toxic waste, poisoning our air, water, lan, and bodies. We organize to oppose giant oil refineries, dirty…
Environment
2
Clean Energy Group Inc
Clean Energy Group promotes effective clean energy policies, develops low carbon technology innovation strategies and promotes new financial tools to strengthen the economy and stabilize climate change.
Environment
3
San Francisco Estuary Institute
Provide scientific support and tools for decision-making and communication through collaborative efforts.
Environment
4
Partnership for Policy Integrity
Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) uses science, communications, and strategic advocacy to protect forests and our climate future.
Environment
5
Collaborative Earth Institute
We are scientists and engineers, humanists and designers. Working entirely in the open, we conduct scientific research and develop technologies that catalyze ecological regeneration at planetary scale.
Science & Tech
6
Interwest Energy Alliance
The Organization is a trade association that brings the nations renewable energy industry together with the Wests advocacy community to drive the responsible expansion of renewable energy
Community Improvement
7
E3G Third Generation Environmentalism
E3g is a leading international not-for-profit think tank specialising in climate diplomacy harnessing expertise in the politics and economics of climate change.
Environment
8
Society of Environmental Journalists
The mission of the society of environmental journalists is to strengthen the quality, reach, and viability of journalism across all media to advance public understanding of environmental issues.
Arts & Culture
9
Clean Energy for America Inc
Clean Energy for Americas purpose is to engage with clean energy workers and advance the clean energy movement. CE4A highlights the feasibility and positive impact of a clean energy economy, educates policymakers and the general public on…
Environment
10
Advanced Energy United Inc
To transform public policy to enable rapid growth of advanced energy businesses.
Community Improvement
11
OpenAQ Inc
By providing universal access to air quality data, OpenAQ empowers a global community of changemakers to solve air inequality.
Environment
12
Clean Energy Transition Institute
To accelerate an equitable clean energy transition in the Northwest by producing unbiased research and analysis framing economic decarbonization strategies and convening stakeholders to debate the tradeoffs in building the clean energy…
Education
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Air Alliance Houston and the most unlike its peers is Until Justice Data Partners. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
05the grantee network
12 grantees, every filing reconciled, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue.
3
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
6
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
10/12
Grew since you first funded
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Environment$2,987,514Civil Rights$350,000Education$160,000Community Improvement$150,000Other$110,000
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds MULTIPLIER ↗
- Who funds BLUEGREEN ALLIANCE FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds BLACK MILLENIALS 4 FLINT ↗
- Who funds APPALACHAIN VOICES ↗
- Who funds AIR ALLIANCE HOUSTON ↗
- Who funds DATA FOR THE SOCIAL GOOD EDUCATION FUND ↗
- Who funds R STREET INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds THE INSTITUTE FOR ENHANCED EQUITY ↗
- Who funds RESTORE THE DELTA ↗
- Who funds UNTIL JUSTICE ↗
- Who funds One Montana ↗
- Who funds SEEC INSTITUTE ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Environmental Defense Fund IncorporatedNY15.8× affinity5 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →
Open a dossier: Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated · United States Energy Foundation · Tides Foundation · Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organisation CENTER FOR CARBON REMOVAL funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–40%
typical government reliance, FY20–24
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending — grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12–24 months.
05Through Plinth
Through Plinth
Your grantmaking, live and operational
This dossier was generated cold from public filings. In Plinth it’s a working system — every applicant assessed and every grant monitored. Here’s a taste, run on one of your grantees: UNTIL JUSTICE.
Agentic due diligence · confidence × risk
Financial management
low risk
~28 months of operating runway; revenue grew over 4 filed years.
Track record & reputation
medium risk
4 years of Form 990 filings, still active; revenue up 6.3× since.
Legal standing
low risk
US 501(c)(3); EIN 853668498 on file with current IRS Form 990 filings.
Governance
Live in Plinth
Board composition & governance documents — verified live in Plinth from the applicant.
Compliance & sanctions
Live in Plinth
OFAC / UN sanctions screening — run live in Plinth at assessment.
Program capacity
Live in Plinth
Staffing, M&E and activity alignment — assessed live in Plinth from submitted proposals.
Live · Plinth’s real DD engine
Run the actual assessment on UNTIL JUSTICE, cold from public data.
Generated live from public IRS filings + open web sources by Plinth’s agentic engine. Shown as an illustration of the product, not a formal assessment.
Post-award monitoring · continuous checks
- On trackFinancial stability— Roughly 28 months of cash on hand.
- On trackSustained operations— Filing through 2025; revenue grew over the period.
- WatchReliance on your funding— Your grants peaked at 51% of their budget — load-bearing; a dependency Plinth would track.
- Awaiting reportEvidence of delivery— Plinth collects the grantee's own monitoring reports post-award.
What you see here is static and public. In Plinth it’s operational — the full six-pillar framework on every applicant (with their own documents + live registry and sanctions checks), monitoring dashboards on every award, custom board reports, and eligibility routing for intake.
Agentic due diligenceMonitoring dashboardsCustom board reportsEligibility routing
Preview generated from this grantee’s public IRS filings and independent reporting. Pillars marked “live in Plinth” require the applicant’s submitted documents. Shown as illustration, not a formal assessment.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPro
How do I get to Center for Carbon Removal?
Find your warmest path to Center for Carbon Removal through people who sit on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the introduction across shared trustees and officers.
Every link is a documented governance overlap in public IRS 990 filings — not a personal network — and each hop carries its own confidence tier. Low-confidence or distant paths are held back rather than guessed.
More from the funding graph
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars pass through an intermediary
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
Strange bedfellows
the named clusters of US funding
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home
State money flows
the interactive map of money crossing state lines