Even if one is skeptical of the detailed numbers of a cost effectiveness analysis like this (as I am), I think it is nonetheless pretty clear that this 1M spent was a pretty great bet:
When I talked to ITIF in 2020, they were pretty clear how transformative the Let’s Funds campaign had been for their fundraising.
Given the amount of innovation-related decision making that occurred in the run-up to and early Biden administration—what became the IIJA, CHIPS, and IRA, probably the largest expansion of energy innovation activity in decades—significantly strengthening one of the most respected voices on energy innovation seemed clearly very good.
ITIF literally co-authored the most detailed blueprint for the Biden energy innovation agenda (Energizing America) and had clear ties into the White House so, conditional on them being funding-constrained (which they perceived themselves to be, see (1)) it seems hard to think there wasn’t a pretty useful way to spend this additional funding.
Even if one thinks ITIF shifted zero dollars towards innovation (from other areas), just marginally improving a single decision would quickly make this a great investment.
We have lots of evidence from other areas that this kind of philanthropy works and often has large impacts via legislative subsidy and other mechanisms.
2000 smallish donors would not have spent their money better otherwise given how most small climate donors allocate their funds (Big Green etc).
I think there’s a failure mode of looking at a cost-effectiveness model like this and rightly thinking—this is really crude and unbelievable! -- while, in this case, wrongly concluding that this wasn’t a great bet even though it is hard to put into a credible BOTEC.
Even if one is skeptical of the detailed numbers of a cost effectiveness analysis like this (as I am), I think it is nonetheless pretty clear that this 1M spent was a pretty great bet:
When I talked to ITIF in 2020, they were pretty clear how transformative the Let’s Funds campaign had been for their fundraising.
Given the amount of innovation-related decision making that occurred in the run-up to and early Biden administration—what became the IIJA, CHIPS, and IRA, probably the largest expansion of energy innovation activity in decades—significantly strengthening one of the most respected voices on energy innovation seemed clearly very good.
ITIF literally co-authored the most detailed blueprint for the Biden energy innovation agenda (Energizing America) and had clear ties into the White House so, conditional on them being funding-constrained (which they perceived themselves to be, see (1)) it seems hard to think there wasn’t a pretty useful way to spend this additional funding.
Even if one thinks ITIF shifted zero dollars towards innovation (from other areas), just marginally improving a single decision would quickly make this a great investment.
We have lots of evidence from other areas that this kind of philanthropy works and often has large impacts via legislative subsidy and other mechanisms.
2000 smallish donors would not have spent their money better otherwise given how most small climate donors allocate their funds (Big Green etc).
I think there’s a failure mode of looking at a cost-effectiveness model like this and rightly thinking—this is really crude and unbelievable! -- while, in this case, wrongly concluding that this wasn’t a great bet even though it is hard to put into a credible BOTEC.