As a clinical psychologist turned climate activist and now a funder of disruptive climate protests, I have witnessed the profound disconnect between the urgency of our climate crisis and the tepid, cautious response of the philanthropic sector. It brings me close to despair, as I know that incrementalism or philanthropy-as-usual can’t possibly be effective at protecting humanity.
The public is in a mass delusion of normalcy — sleepwalking off a cliff — and philanthropy is complicit. Philanthropy has treated the climate as one problem among many that should be dealt with in a “business as usual” way, including all of the philanthropic sector’s incrementalism and caution.
This is entirely the wrong approach. What’s needed is for philanthropy to treat the climate emergency like the crisis it is. There’s a recent precedent for this: In 2020, as COVID ravaged populations worldwide and governments seemed unable to attack the problem, the largest foundations
marshaled their resources and quickly poured an estimated $10 billion into the development, testing and deployment of new vaccines. Their efforts saved millions of lives.
Unfortunately for all of us, the climate is
an order of magnitude more dangerous than COVID. It’s time to spend aggressively. What good is an endowment if Copenhagen, New York City and Seattle are under water and Silicon Valley is burned to a cinder by perpetual wildfires? Foundations need to recognize that their missions — whether in medical research, education, or social justice — are all threatened by the climate emergency. There will be no hospitals, schools or social services on a dead planet.
There will be no hospitals, schools, or social services on a dead planet.
In order to meet the moment, foundations must engage in organization-wide reckonings, learning together about the scale and urgency of the climate emergency — and the fact that traditional philanthropy has thus far not been able to reduce emissions globally. Foundations should ask, given the acute nature of the crisis, what are the ways they should depart from their usual “philanthropy as normal” mode, and get out of our comfort zone.
Philanthropies must reassess their grantmaking strategies and priorities in light of the apocalyptic nature of the climate emergency. Particularly, they should re-evaluate their approaches to risk, efficacy and conflict. The greatest risk, by far, is for philanthropy to move too slowly and too timidly. Continuing down our current path will lead to horrific outcomes. To be prudent, we must be bold. That means making big bets on new groups and new people.
Philanthropies must also not be afraid of conflict — and be explicit about the need to fight and end the fossil fuel industry, and the politicians who support it. The
Carmack Collective and Equation Campaign have both done this, shaping their missions to fight fossil fuels.
Foundations should interrogate and explore with an open mind what is the highest leverage, fastest, most effective way that they can use their resources to respond to the climate emergency. One way I advise funders to think about this is by asking: Who, ultimately, will cover the cost of the transition to zero emissions, which will need to be on the scale of World War II? Is it philanthropy? Of course not. Only
governments have the kind of spending power — and legislative power — that we need. Philanthropy, with its significant resources and influence, has the potential to shake the public awake and spur the government to this necessary mobilization, but not to execute such a mobilization itself.
Philanthropy has a unique and critical role to play in addressing the climate emergency. By acknowledging the calamity we face and adjusting their operations, philanthropies can lead society into the “emergency mode” necessary to avert disaster.
How can philanthropy help create a society-wide mobilization? There is only one way: Funding social movements.
Throughout history, transformative change has come about through movements and social revolutions. From the civil rights movement to the women’s movement to ACT UP and the gay rights movement, authentic people-led movements drew attention to the cause, drastically moved public opinion, and forced governments to change, adapt and respond.
Philanthropies should shift from funding large legacy, incremental environmental organizations that have demonstrated an inability to act on the speed and scale necessary, to younger, dynamic groups that leverage effective tactics, crisis communications efforts and disruptive activism.
Supporting disruptive protests may be one of the most cost-effective strategies for addressing the climate crisis. A 2021
analysis by Giving Green revealed that each dollar invested in protest activities could reduce emissions by six metric tons of carbon, due to its influence on legislative outcomes. Additionally, a study published in the Stanford Social Innovation Review found that donations to organizations like Extinction Rebellion or the Sunrise Movement are six to 12 times more impactful than contributions to top-rated climate charities.
One reason is that nonviolent disruptive actions achieve media coverage at a rate no other initiatives can match.
Climate Emergency Fund’s disruptive grantees were featured in over 75,000 articles in 2022 and 2023 worldwide. The disruptive activists we support are forcing a reluctant media to cover their actions, whether halting national sporting events, shutting down private airports or disrupting political speeches. These activists embody the emergency mentality. With their actions, they demonstrate the degree of their alarm and the seriousness of the crisis.
And yet these approaches are seriously underfunded. Philanthropic funding for climate change represents only about 1.5 percent of total philanthropic contributions. Within this small portion, the amount allocated to grassroots climate activism is so minimal that it isn’t even recognized as a distinct grant-making category in the
ClimateWorks Foundation’s 2022 report on climate philanthropy.
The Carmack Collective, Equation Campaign and the Climate Emergency Fund, where I am the executive director, are three groups supporting people-led organizations fighting the fossil fuel industry. The larger
JPB Foundation and the Sequoia Foundation have also demonstrated commendable efforts in funding people-powered movements and aggressive climate action. These organizations exemplify the kind of leadership needed.
Philanthropy has a unique and critical role to play in addressing the climate emergency. By acknowledging the calamity we face and adjusting their operations, philanthropies can lead society into the “emergency mode” necessary to avert disaster. The time for half-measures, white papers and panel discussions is over. Philanthropy must act now, boldly and decisively, to help save our planet for future generations.
