Nestled in a quieter street of vibrant central London, the headquarters of a significant yet under-the-radar climate organization awaits your discovery.

The Quadrature Climate Foundation (QCF) annually allocates hundreds of millions of dollars to some of the most impactful campaign groups and scientific institutions, at the forefront of research and advocacy in green transitions. It funds initiatives such as anti-methane vaccines for livestock, sustainable aviation fuel, geothermal energy, and carbon capture technologies.

As research budgets tighten in universities and across the UK, organizations like QCF step in to facilitate the shift toward net-zero emissions.

Established in 2019 as a charitable arm of the Four Seasons hedge fund, the QCF empowers founders Greg Skinner and Sunil Setya to tackle climate challenges. Recently recognized in the Sunday Times Rich List for their philanthropic efforts, they contributed over $6.7 million to climate-related initiatives last week through the foundation. In total, QCF has dispersed over $1 billion to climate interventions, ranking it as one of the largest and most influential climate charities globally.

Who decides which research projects to back, what causes to prioritize, and the strategic direction to pursue? Greg de Temmerman, a former nuclear physicist and the QCF’s Chief Science Officer, is tasked with evaluating proposals to identify the most promising initiatives.

Madeleine Cuff: Could you explain your transition from a nuclear fusion focus to climate strategy?

Greg de Temmerman: I worked on the ITER project [an international fusion experiment based in France] for seven years, the largest scientific endeavor on Earth. Throughout this period, I engaged in outreach efforts to demystify fusion. Unfortunately, the project faced mounting delays.

I was frequently interacting with decision-makers, which illuminated the divide between scientific research and policy-making. Consequently, I chose to exit fusion in 2020 and co-founded a think tank with a Parisian entrepreneur, aiming to bridge the gap between policymakers and early-stage technology. In 2023, I joined the Quadrature Climate Foundation where I continue this mission, but now with greater resources to effect change.

Explain your current role at QCF.

QCF’s mission is to promote projects and partnerships that can drive global change. Our portfolio includes support for early-stage technologies, advocacy, campaigns, technical work, capacity building, and more. It’s crucial to identify the problem at hand.

For instance, one might say, “I want to boost renewable energy,” but what obstacles stand in the way? Is it financial resources? Infrastructure issues? I was brought on board to ask these critical questions and ensure we pursue the right solutions.

How does charitable funding differ from traditional investments and government support?

Charitable funding doesn’t seek financial returns, allowing for greater risk-taking than typical investments. Moreover, we can move more swiftly than government entities. Essentially, we both catalyze the net-zero movement and act as a catalyst for other funding sources.

With an impressive annual budget reaching around $325 million in 2025, do you face significant influences?

We are notable players in climate finance but still small in comparison to what’s needed for a successful climate transition. While it feels empowering to operate at this scale, our budget pales in comparison to the global demands of climate mitigation.

You support various initiatives, from studying climate change impacts to advocating for clean tech entrepreneurship. Can you share a particular success?

We were among the first substantial funders of permanent carbon removal techniques. Our initiatives aimed to develop a compliance market while emphasizing accountability measures. This became critical following discussions ignited by the last international climate change report, which highlighted the necessity for negative emissions, leading to serious dialogue on the subject.

Last year, you introduced a new strategy, shifting focus towards adaptation and resilience in climate change. What prompted this shift?

The climate crisis is accelerating, with more extreme weather events becoming a norm. Adaptation is essential to any decarbonization efforts. This new strategy seeks to unify our initiatives under a coherent vision, aligning with what our founders find most impactful.

As part of the new strategy, you’ll be supporting climate intervention research, particularly geoengineering, which can be contentious. What motivates this funding?

Indeed, these scientific endeavors should predominantly come from public funding, which has been lacking for various reasons. Thus, we decided to support this research to ensure that vital questions are being explored.

This sector raises major ethical concerns. How can you justify financial support for it?

I don’t have a definitive stance on the ethics of geoengineering. Currently, it’s a complex arena that necessitates rigorous understanding, and I don’t endorse any immediate applications of geoengineering techniques.

Our intent is to spark discussions about geoengineering, especially as new startups emerge in this field, despite existing research lagging behind.

Is your support strictly for foundational research, or do you engage with field trials as well?

Much of our backing centers around fundamental climate science. One pressing issue in geoengineering is understanding cloud formation, which parallels many critical challenges in climate science. We funded a minimal outdoor experiment in the U.S. that was suspended after a few weeks due to public backlash. We prefer to remain cautious and utilize robust climate models to predict the impacts of geoengineering. Comprehensive observational capabilities are essential for effective outdoor trials, and we believe there remains much work in foundational climate science.

In the current political climate, with leaders like former President Trump rolling back climate policies, how do you navigate these headwinds?

Transition involves disruption; established systems resist change while new ones emerge, and this tension can be challenging. It’s essential to foster understanding of this dynamic and communicate the complexities inherent to the transition process.

The upcoming years may be tough. Addressing climate issues has become increasingly challenging. In the UK, rising electricity costs compound the disconnect between the public’s perception of renewable energy benefits and their current bills, which can lead to skepticism.

However, there’s compelling motivation to move away from fossil fuels, independent of climate beliefs. Oil and gas markets are notoriously unstable, making diversification essential for resilience. The key is to demonstrate that energy transitions benefit everyone, regardless of their views on climate action.

Climate disinformation and malign players pose challenges. What can be done to combat this?

Attacks on climate science persist, but the overwhelming evidence supports the scientific consensus. While some may cling to flat Earth beliefs, the facts remain clear. Increasingly, the discourse pivots to contesting solutions rather than the scientific basis itself. For instance, searching “Electric Car” on YouTube reveals numerous videos disputing their efficacy. These discussions, while interesting, rely heavily on data and understanding.

What exciting prospects lie ahead for QCF in the coming year?

To transform industries, we must bring down energy costs, and there are opportunities to achieve that. Furthermore, tackling industrial emissions—once deemed difficult—is now achievable with ready solutions. It’s an exhilarating time as skeptics claimed decarbonizing sectors like steel was impossible. But now, we know we can do it.

As you’ve identified as a major player, how do you cope with the responsibility of influencing climate transition?

It’s about recognizing our role within the broader system and acknowledging our limitations. It’s vital to approach initiatives with the belief that we can unlock new possibilities, while remaining open to the reality that we may not always be correct.

How do you maintain optimism in a time where climate progress appears stagnant?

I often say my optimism shines on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays; I’m more pessimistic on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, with Sundays reserved for reflection.