Perspectives

By Jennifer Kitt

Nan Ransohoff’s thoughtful essay on AI philanthropy has been a hot topic and sparked conversations about what a new generation of AI wealth could mean for philanthropy. Given Climate Lead’s work advising philanthropists, several people have asked my opinion.

My answer is simple: I’m optimistic. Not because new wealth automatically creates impact, but because I don’t see a scarcity of solutions. I see a scarcity of philanthropy. Climate is the field I know best, but I suspect this is true across many causes.

One of the biggest questions Nan’s essay raises is: If AI creates an extraordinary new wave of philanthropy, where will that capital go?

In climate, we already have a pipeline of high-impact opportunities ready to scale. Nonprofits, entrepreneurs, collaboratives, and mission-driven companies are doing remarkable work. And, what may be surprising, is that most of the infrastructure needed to deploy significantly more climate philanthropy already exists. What many of these organizations lack isn’t vision or talent—it’s the philanthropic capital to match their ambition.

Climate philanthropy just passed 2% of global giving for the first time—a milestone shared in ClimateWorks Foundation’s funding trends report this week, and worth celebrating. But it is still far below what’s needed. At Climate Lead, we’ve analyzed more than 400 high-impact climate solutions, and 80 of the most urgent are ready to put $5 billion to work today.

If even part of the new AI wealth Nan describes is directed toward climate, it could become one of the greatest opportunities we’ve seen to accelerate solutions that are already improving lives while addressing one of the defining challenges of our time.

And there’s reason to believe they will. These founders are already leading by example—committing to give 80% of their wealth to good causes and inspiring colleagues to do the same with one of the most generous corporate matches we’ve ever seen. If they meet those commitments, many important causes will finally have the resources they need.

Nan is right that many of these new funders will want to build their own solutions. They’ve already changed the world once with their talents—of course they’ll want to do it again. And some new ideas will absolutely be needed.

One observation from six years of advising many of the world’s leading philanthropists, including technology founders:

Many arrive assuming they’ll need to build something entirely new.

Sometimes they do, and innovation will always matter.

But as they immerse themselves in complex challenges like climate, many discover something unexpected: there are already outstanding organizations delivering real impact. Their question evolves from “What should I build?” to “How can I help the best ideas reach scale?”

In my experience, the most effective philanthropists do both. They invest in innovation while also helping organizations reach more people, attract exceptional talent, and move faster.

One other point from Nan’s essay resonated with me: philanthropy should attract world-class talent, move with urgency, and execute with the ambition and discipline we’ve come to expect from the best technology companies.

I couldn’t agree more.

This moment presents an extraordinary opportunity—not only to invent what’s next, but to accelerate the remarkable work that’s already underway.

I’m optimistic we’ll do both.