While environmental giving mushroomed to twice its annual amounts in 2007 and 2008 after the documentary An Inconvenient Truth made climate change part of the international zeitgeist, annual giving in the sector has since fallen off dramatically, according to the Foundation Center.
Foundations—by far the largest donor community and good indicators of where benefactor interests lie—now give about $1.5 billion to the climate change cause per year, down from a $2 billion peak seven years ago.
All this giving goes to nonprofits or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), whose mission statements range from clean energy development to clean water to conservation, among myriad other approaches. Indeed, the activities of the top 10 most effective NGOs listed by Philanthropedia, a service of GuideStar USA that serves donors, span from protecting wildlife to grassroots activism to scientific research to protecting forests, protecting communities, transforming the transportation industry and developing clean energy, as well as pushing for new laws and policies.
The environmental playing field is, shall we say, spread thin. And many of these activities—such as wildlife protection—have little if any effect on actual climate change. Hence figuring how much is given to climate change mitigation efforts alone is difficult. Still, even taking all that extraneous activity into account, the net total of $1.5 billion still sounds like a lot of money.
But it isn’t. And here’s why: The Environmental Protection Agency’s budget is about $8 billion a year. Never mind the billions more spent by the Interior and the Energy departments, which also aim policies at climate change mitigation and environmental causes. The coffers of eco-NGOs by comparison are but a pittance. Even with their significantly larger budgets, government agencies have been unable to forge much new ground or stem the tide of climate change.
To prevent a two degrees Celsius rise in global temperatures by 2050, which would have far-reaching effects on lives, property and ecosystems, the U.S. needs to cut carbon emissions from 1990 levels by at least 25% through 2020, as proposed in the 2005 United Nation’s Kyoto Protocol agreement. Instead, the U.S. has actually increased carbon emissions nearly 10% from 1990 levels.
This isn’t to say the federal government has done nothing or that it hasn’t taken strides to chart a cleaner energy path for the country. Nor is it to say that climate groups haven’t rallied for better policies.
The largest march against climate change rolled through New York City last September with nearly half a million people participating. But a whimper from it was heard in terms of policy change or business or scientific development. And a new round of concerts is planned for June by the organizers of the Live Earth campaign with the goal of acquiring one billion signatures from individuals concerned about climate change. What that will lead to is anyone’s guess. Obviously, the outcry of “we care” is important for politicians and business leaders—those in positions to actually do something about climate change—to hear, but there is a strong chance the outpouring of goodwill will more likely result instead in shrugs of “who cares?”
Climate philanthropy funneled through nonprofit organizations need not have such weak results.
According to the International Energy Agency, it will take about $1 trillion per year in funding through 2050 to mitigate the effects of climate change. This would mean new power grids—“smart” grids—and new energy efficiency measures as well as power plants.
“Analysis of the entire energy system shows that delaying action on climate change is a false economy,” the IEA writes in its report, Redrawing The Energy-Climate Map. Lower amounts of investments now will result in far larger investment requirements later, the IEA concludes.
“The weight of scientific analysis tells us that our climate is already changing and that we should expect extreme weather events (such as storms, floods and heat waves) to become more frequent and intense, as well as increasing global temperatures and rising sea levels. Policies that have been implemented suggest that the long-term average temperature increase is more likely to be between 3.6 and 5.3 degrees Celsius (compared with pre-industrial levels), with most of the increase occurring this century. While global action is not yet sufficient to limit the global temperature rise to two degrees Celsius, this target still remains technically feasible, though extremely challenging,” the IEA writes.
That extreme challenge equals $1 trillion. So rather than a billion signatures, why not aim for a trillion-dollar campaign? At least that would present a goal with some teeth.
Ceres, the Boston-based nonprofit that seeks to mobilize business leaders for a sustainable world, has done just that. It has created a “Clean Trillion” campaign that urges businesses to invest in clean energy solutions. Its road map to sustainability helps business by 2020 commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25%; improving the energy efficiency of their operations by at least 50%; reducing electricity demand by at least 15%; and obtaining at least 30% of energy from renewable sources.
Moreover, these businesses can flex their muscles and lobby for policies that expand investment in clean energy through Ceres’ Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy (BICEP) initiative.
These actions seem rather clear. Whether they are attainable is another story. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, investments in clean energy rose 16% in 2014 to $310 billion. Good news given that it is the first such rise in three years, but there is still a ways to go in reaching Ceres’ vaunted trillion-dollar-a-year campaign goal.
Meanwhile, Tom Steyer, the billionaire environmental philanthropist, spent at least $57 million of his own money on environmental and political causes last year, according to The New York Times, only “to have largely wasted his time and money.”
In total, environmental groups spent $85 million—a magnitude greater than they had ever spent in any election year, the Times reports, and virtually nothing came of it. Democrats and respective environmental policy packages were famously quashed during the November midterm elections.
If not through policy or purse strings, where might climate philanthropy wage influence?
Sarah Hansen, author of Cultivating the Grassroots: A Winning Approach for Environment and Climate Funders, a report published by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, contends environment and climate funders can be more effective by investing heavily in grassroots communities that are disproportionately impacted by harm to the environment and climate. “By engaging meaningfully at the grassroots level, grant makers have the opportunity not just to support efforts that are especially strong but to use their work at the local level to build political pressure and mobilize for national change,” she says.
The famous mantra put forth by former Speaker of the House Thomas “Tip” O’Neill that “all politics is local,” might apply to climate change actions and effectiveness as well.
This is buttressed by research. Eco America, a research and marketing organization whose mission is to connect with Americans’ core values to bring about and support change in personal and civic choices and behaviors, finds that “local preparedness resonates.” This is because personal health and welfare are of higher priority to individuals than more general and sweeping climate change considerations.
Low priorities result in less action.
To be sure, the climate movement en masse has registered some success: More hybrid and electric vehicles are on the roads, new carbon pollution standards for coal plants have been introduced and more households are getting their power from solar and wind sources.
But even all that won’t move the dial much in the face of irreparable global warming by 2050, when the damage of too much carbon in the atmosphere will channel its severity across land and sea.
So perhaps a focus on the here and now—and zeroing in on local initiatives—is what’s warranted. At least that is what some climate philanthropists are starting to believe.
Toward that end, the Rockefeller Foundation is turning its attention to climate resiliency. It’s backing the 100 Resilient Cities effort (100resilientcities.org) to help cities around the globe adapt to the new normal of weather extremes and natural resource disruptions. The foundation is also issuing practical guidelines for using information ecosystems to promote resiliency.
As climate change and extreme weather roil the world, more climate adaptation and resilience programs are in fact sorely and practically needed. Infrastructure work, which is what adaptation and resiliency amount to, can translate into more jobs and promising investment opportunities. This is the terrain of impact investing, where capital produces both financial and social returns.
Fixing cracks and sealing frames may not be as sexy as far-flung experiments to discover the silver bullet for climate change mitigation. Less sexiness and hype and more seriousness, however, may be just what the climate movement needs.
Government, after all, isn’t sexy. Neither should philanthropy be. The climate movement needs to be more results-driven for the benefit of us all.
As Jonathan Parfrey, executive director of Climate Resolve, a California-centric nonprofit, puts it, “It’s about putting one foot in front of the other and being methodical, not grandiose.”
Dreaming of a cleaner world and calmer climate may be big, but it’s the little things—tried and true—that will make that dream a reality. Climate philanthropists take note.
