ARC Initiative FAQ

The Advanced Research for Climate Emergencies (ARC) Initiative is a philanthropic fund dedicated to translational R&D for addressing catastrophic climate risks. While much of the climate field focuses on the essential work of emissions reduction and carbon removal efforts to restore the climate, ARC fills a critical gap by funding research into prediction, prevention, and preparation strategies for catastrophic climate risks and tipping points like polar ice sheet collapse, methane feedback loops, ocean current destabilization, essential ecosystem collapse, and others. ARC supports experts whose research can unlock new understanding of these risks and could ultimately provide society with options to address them. 

Dire warnings from scientists about the increasing risk of unacceptable, and in some cases unimaginable, climate impacts are growing ever more frequent: catastrophic sea level rise, large-scale loss of arable land or critical freshwater sources, regional feedback loops that could drive rainforest dieback or uncontrollable methane emissions, or earth system changes in the ocean or Arctic that could drive unpredictable large-scale changes in severe weather (just to name a few). Reducing emissions and removing carbon are necessary and essential for securing a safe climate future, but these efforts are no longer sufficient. The harsh reality is that even if the world reaches net zero emissions, the risk of triggering one or more climate tipping points remains high – posing an unacceptable level of risk to humanity and the environment. Some climate changes, like sea level rise from collapsing ice sheets or the release of methane from thawing permafrost, could continue for centuries even if emissions stopped tomorrow. The best way to prepare is to improve our ability to predict, prevent, and mitigate these risks, rather than waiting until it’s too late.

ARC supports expert-led, mission-driven translational R&D focused on four critical areas:

1. Preventing Catastrophic Sea Level Rise – Researching ways to stabilize ice sheets and exploring large-scale interventions like inland sea reflooding.
2. Avoiding Climate Overshoot – Advancing knowledge on solar radiation management, Arctic cooling, and rapid CO₂ reduction to mitigate extreme warming.
3. Restoring Ocean Balance – Investigating ocean-based solutions for cooling ecosystems, protecting biodiversity, and enhancing carbon sequestration.
4. Preparing for Potential Climate Emergencies – Developing tools for policymakers and scalable adaptation strategies for extreme climate risks.

We approach catastrophic climate risk as a “wicked problem,” one rooted in strongly coupled, complex systems that defy simple solutions. ARC supports integrated approaches that account for social, ecological, geopolitical, and technical complexity, resisting the temptation to treat individual risks and interventions in isolation. Furthermore, de-risking the future requires a multidisciplinary approach, not only through scientific insight and technical development, but also social, political, legal, and environmental expertise and foresight – and the projects we support reflect this multidisciplinary understanding and approach. 

Our team is always on the lookout for bold, mission-driven scientists, experts, and innovators with novel ideas – if you’re working on one of these climate risk areas, you can get in touch with us.

Climate tipping points are thresholds in the Earth’s system where relatively small changes can trigger irreversible and self-reinforcing shifts. For example, if the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapses, which scientists suspect is already well underway, it could permanently raise global sea levels by several meters, flooding major coastal cities and regions. Other risks include the loss of Arctic sea ice, permafrost thaw releasing methane, and ocean circulation shifts that could disrupt weather patterns and food supplies. The reality is that the risk of triggering a tipping point increases with each fraction of a degree of warming. Once these processes start, they can’t easily be reversed, which is why researching options to address them now is critical.

Many governments hesitate to invest in researching climate interventions due to political concerns, lack of understanding, and often lack of clear ownership for broad and complex climate-related risks. However, without research, these issues don’t go away, they just become more urgent and less understood. Philanthropy can act now to fill this gap by funding critical research, de-risking potential solutions, and ensuring that when these approaches are considered, they are informed by science, not crisis-driven decisions made out of desperation.

ARC has 6 core principles [link] that guide our work and ensure the research we support is conducted with scientific integrity, transparency, and coordination with a variety of stakeholders. All of our research is designed to be attentive to governance needs and accessible for public understanding, so that if these options are ever considered, they are well understood, responsibly developed, and technologically ready, ultimately providing the scientific basis for leaders to make informed, responsible decisions in the face of climate emergencies.ARC’s Principles draw on leading governance frameworks, including the American Geophysical Union’s ethical framework, ARIA’s governance principles, and the Oxford Principles – while tailoring oversight to the risk, scope, and context of each initiative. Our principles guide how we select projects, support teams, and evaluate progress – not just for technical promise, but for scientific integrity, social legitimacy, and long-term social benefit. They provide a robust foundation for responsible climate intervention research and have significantly informed ARC’s approach.

The prevailing vision for the climate future implicitly or explicitly accepts an extraordinary level of loss. Even under optimistic scenarios like 2°C of warming, the world is bracing for widespread suffering: lives lost, places erased, populations displaced, ecosystems collapsed. Within the UNFCCC framework, this is categorized as “loss and damage” – a term that has come to encompass all the harms that go beyond what people and systems can adapt to. 

This framing is dangerously inadequate. It treats the most catastrophic outcomes as seemingly inevitable, and by doing so, discourages investment in the kinds of action that could actually prevent them. That is the moral hazard: by accepting large-scale climate loss as a given, we foreclose the possibility of saving what still could be saved.

ARC exists to challenge that assumption. Our long-term vision is a future where catastrophic climate risks are taken seriously and addressed head-on – scientifically, politically, and morally. Where society invests early in the ability to predict, prevent, and prepare for tipping points and extreme climate feedbacks. A future without catastrophic “loss and damage” where the vast majority of the impacts of climate change can in fact be accommodated through adaptation, as part of an ambitious effort to preserve life, protect ecosystems, and avoid irreversible destruction – especially for the most vulnerable.

This vision requires foresight, responsibility, and a willingness to act on threats that are complex, uncertain, and politically inconvenient. But it’s also a vision grounded in courage: that with the right tools and the right knowledge, the worst outcomes are not inevitable. 

ARC supports projects that address high-impact, underfunded climate risks – especially those related to tipping points, feedback loops, and tail-risk scenarios that current mitigation and adaptation efforts don’t adequately address. Our goal is to bridge the gap between breakthrough science and real-world societal needs, while aligning with our ARC Principles [link] to ensure all research is conducted responsibly, transparently, and in the public interest.

We use the following prioritization framework to guide our strategy and funding decisions:

• Catastrophic risk relevance – What’s at stake if this risk materializes? How confident are we in our current understanding?
• Neglectedness – How underfunded or overlooked is this area of research, particularly in relation to potentially high or catastrophic stakes?
• Tractability – Can focused R&D actually move the needle or unlock useful or transformational knowledge?
• Talent & Capacity – Is there strong, mission-aligned talent that could accelerate progress with dedicated support?

We constantly apply this lens as we assess potential projects, programs, and emerging risks, focusing our resources where they can have the greatest marginal impact based on the maturity of the science, availability of capable teams, and evolving threat outlook.

In addition to our main grantmaking streams, ARC also uses an innovative microgranting approach to support early-stage or exploratory ideas. Inspired by models like the Experiment Foundation, we give expert advisors small regranting budgets to quickly back promising “What if…?” questions – ideas that might be too early or speculative for traditional funding. This allows us to identify and empower emerging researchers, move fast on new signals, and surface ideas that institutional systems often miss. It also confers agency – enabling experts and researchers to act on curiosity and urgency, not bureaucratic timelines. 

Renaissance Philanthropy and ARC work in close partnership with the UK Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) to advance responsible, high-impact translational R&D. ARC and ARIA support bold scientific efforts guided by shared commitment to integrity, transparency, and societal benefit – ensuring that critical climate risks are addressed responsibly, safely, and effectively. While each operates independently, our governance principles are closely aligned  and reinforce a common foundation for responsible innovation in high-consequence climate risk areas. The ARIA-ARC partnership also extends to the Climate Emergencies Forum (CEF) – a platform for scientists, policymakers, NGOs, funders, and industries like insurance and finance to drive greater awareness of threats and options, enable coordination across traditional silos, and establish the scientific basis for coordinated action, informed governance, and R&D funding decisions.

Cutting emissions is absolutely essential – but it is simply not enough in our current climate reality. Even the most hopeful mitigation scenarios leave us exposed to catastrophic risks. Net-zero by 2050 is now the benchmark for “ambitious” climate action. But that target still assumes a significant overshoot of safe temperature thresholds, likely reaching 1.7–2°C before gradually stabilizing. In reality, current trajectories may be on course for even higher warming depending on how global pledges are implemented and whether key tipping points accelerate warming further. This is not a controlled landing; it’s more like flying blind into turbulence while hoping the runway will appear in time.

That level of warming increases the likelihood of triggering dangerous tipping points: collapse of major ice sheets, release of methane from thawing permafrost, disruption of monsoon systems, and the dieback of carbon-rich ecosystems like the Amazon. These are risks that carbon mitigation alone cannot stop once they are underway.

As we’ve written about, current global plan assumes we’ll scale up carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to 10 billion tons per year by 2050—roughly equivalent to the annual emissions of China. To return atmospheric CO₂ to safer levels (e.g. 350 ppm), we’d likely need to remove another 1,000–2,000 billion tons over the second half of the century. That implies a trillion-dollar industry, built largely from scratch, operating at gigaton scale by mid-century. While technically feasible, that pathway is deeply uncertain and politically fragile. In this context, refusing to even study other tools – like targeted cooling of polar regions or temporary solar reflection strategies – is not caution. It’s a gamble. The truly irresponsible move would be to leave society with no well-understood options if we begin to cross dangerous thresholds.

The moral hazard we should worry about is not that researching these tools will lead to reckless deployment. The real moral hazard is accepting massive, avoidable loss and damage – particularly for the most vulnerable – because we failed to prepare. Research is not deployment. Responsible, transparent research is how we reduce uncertainty, inform governance, and ensure that if these tools are ever considered, they are evaluated on the basis of science, not desperation.

The reality is that we are already drastically affecting the climate at both regional and global scales – through GHG emissions, deforestation, and pollution. Climate interventions are not about controlling the climate, but about understanding whether we have responsible ways to slow or prevent catastrophic impacts. Ignoring these possibilities doesn’t make them go away – it just leaves us unprepared, and entire populations and ecosystems in harm’s way.

ARC is not an advocacy organization – we do not promote or push for deployment of any specific intervention. Our role is to support research, risk assessment, and governance so that society has informed, responsible choices available if and when they’re needed. We don’t prescribe the future – we prepare for it. That means we embrace complexity, reject false certainty, and require clear rationales for exploring any intervention, without making overconfident claims of readiness or impact. Whether any option is ever used is a matter for policymakers, international institutions, and democratic processes – not ARC or its funders. Our job is to ensure that those decisions aren’t made in a vacuum of knowledge or in a moment of crisis without viable, well-understood tools on the table.