As climate philanthropy heats up, experts urge pragmatic approach

Foundations and individual wealthy donors have been stepping up commitments to address climate change and environmental issues over the past year, with dozens expected to make additional pledges ahead of the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP 26. As hundreds of millions of dollars flow into the space, experts on climate philanthropy are advising funders to exercise caution when developing projects and ensure they are both effective in tackling climate issues and inclusive of local communities. The Bezos Earth Fund, the IKEA Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, the Rob and Melani Walton Foundation, and the Wyss Foundation are among the major global funders that have announced large commitments to environmental conservation and climate change in recent weeks. Billionaire Michael Bloomberg, the founder of Bloomberg Philanthropies, has begun rolling out the first of dozens of climate- and environment-focused investments through the company Bloomberg LP and his philanthropy in the lead-up to COP 26, a Bloomberg Philanthropies spokesperson told Devex. “The latest science has made clear that we need to accelerate our efforts in the global fight against climate change, and this year’s climate conference in [Scottish city] Glasgow is a vital opportunity to do just that,” said Bloomberg, who is also the U.N. secretary-general’s special envoy on climate ambition and solutions, in a statement. Some of the investments he has recently announced via Bloomberg Philanthropies include a $25 million commitment to deploy technologies for analyzing methane emissions and a separate $25 million pledge to advance clean energy in South and Southeast Asia. At least 19 foundations have joined Bloomberg Philanthropies in collectively pledging more than $223 million to “drastically” reduce methane emissions. WINGS, a network of philanthropic groups, is meanwhile leading a climate change commitment drive as part of an initiative that will be formally announced during COP 26. “We need to tackle the climate crisis, the climate emergency because it has an impact on all other issues that the [philanthropy] field cares about, and it might even jeopardize our capacity to just simply work in the coming years,” WINGS Executive Director Benjamin Bellegy told Devex. “This represents an existential threat.” The swirl of new activity tracks with findings from recent reports by ClimateWorks Foundation and Our Shared Seas that showed an increase in philanthropy for climate change mitigation and marine conservation in 2020, with much of it driven by new major donors entering the space. But philanthropy for climate change mitigation remains just a small portion of total giving. Respecting local expertise Experts following the issue are applauding the surge in new climate commitments. But at least one is warning funders against moving forward on any commitment lacking an inclusive decision-making process and recognition of local communities’ expertise and dependence on the natural resources that philanthropists seek to protect. Heather Grady, who heads Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors’ environment, rights, and global development portfolio, said philanthropy initiatives must assess local impacts and be held accountable to communities to ensure climate change commitments are most beneficial to these populations. And that work should be done at the start, she argued. “Let’s say that someone commits $30 million,” she said. “Surely, within that $30 million, they can afford to spend some effort to just learn more about the complexity of the issue before they just start funding things where they don’t think about unintended consequences.” For example, with efforts around carbon offsets and conservation, Grady suggested funders think about ways to include Indigenous and grassroots groups in decision-making processes. She said that some funders seeking to reforest lands have done so without bringing back local biodiversity. Instead, they created a monoculture consisting of one type of tree or plant. Those aren’t places where communities can thrive, Grady said. “I have personally visited some so-called green energy projects for which investors were getting credit,” she said. “Companies are selling carbon offsets. … And you go and visit, and it’s a disaster for the local community.” She said monoculture green energy projects can be particularly concerning for communities that have only customary land rights and no title to the areas where they work or live. Those lands may be absorbed into green projects or conservation efforts without communities’ consent or input, she noted. This might be avoided if funders follow U.N. guidelines around free, prior, and informed consent that acknowledge the collective ownership style of many Indigenous people, but most don’t even know about those standards, according to Grady. Climate change mitigation vs. environmental philanthropy Tackling carbon emissions from transportation is another area where major philanthropists are getting involved. Google recently announced a partnership with Travalyst — a sustainable tourism initiative that Prince Harry launched under the recently dissolved Sussex Royal foundation — to steer travelers toward lower-emissions flights. Grady noted that transportation is a space in which philanthropists can have a significant impact if they take a “human-centered approach.” An example might be investing in cleaner public transportation, which would benefit the general public regardless of class and income level, instead of pushing for a transition to electric cars that must still be assembled in manufacturing facilities, she said. As money flows into these areas, funders should be aware of the distinction between climate change mitigation and environmental philanthropy, according to Giving Green co-founder Dan Stein. Giving Green is an initiative of the international development nonprofit IDinsight that advocates for investments in climate change projects. “I think that there’s a blurring between the traditional environmental agenda and the climate agenda, and I think that needs clarification,” Stein told Devex. For example, he said efforts to remove plastics from the ocean have less tangible impact on addressing climate change than investments in renewable energy. Stein said Giving Green wants to help donors focus specifically on fighting climate change and to identify organizations dedicated to this mission. That can sometimes be difficult because fundraisers look to “heartwarming stories” to help raise money, he added, such as removing a plastic straw that has become stuck to a turtle. While those are worthwhile projects, more attention should be paid to issues such as the “nuts and bolts” of clean electrification policy and incentives in the context of climate change mitigation philanthropy, he said. “We need to tackle the climate crisis ... because it has an impact on all other issues that the [philanthropy] field cares about.” --— Benjamin Bellegy, executive director, WINGS “It’s hard to get people excited about wonky, technical policy stuff like that, and I think that’s why you don’t see as much excitement about it as there should be,” Stein said. “That’s a really underfunded push that should be happening in climate [philanthropy].” But right now, WINGS isn’t preoccupied with drawing distinctions between climate change and environmental philanthropy as it ramps up its pledge drive, according to Bellegy. For the group’s purposes, he said climate action could include a broad range of work in areas such as biodiversity, conservation, and sustainable food systems. Still, he noted that reducing plastic pollution and similar activities are less directly linked to climate change. But the fact that discussions about the intersection of climate change and environmental philanthropy are happening is a good sign, he said. Bellegy has also said that building accountability and indicators into new philanthropic commitments is essential to ensuring that climate pledges are ultimately fulfilled.