Is the quiet you hear from climate funders a strategic pause or stunned silence?
In recent weeks, political setbacks have battered climate philanthropy. The Trump administration has withdrawn the United States from the Paris climate agreement, pulled climate-related content from government websites, and announced plans to withhold federal funding from climate nonprofits. And yet, as the New York Times bluntly put it, “Under Trump, Billionaire Climate Champions Have Gone Quiet.”
Funders deserve the benefit of the doubt. In a time of flux, it’s wise to take a breath. Even as a few billionaires bend in the political wind, their staffs remain hard at work, as I’ve observed firsthand. Some grant makers are fighting behind the scenes, while at least one — Bloomberg Philanthropies — is acting boldly, immediately pledging to fulfill U.S. funding and reporting commitments under the Paris agreement.
Still, most climate grant makers I’ve talked to admit they lack a shared strategy to respond to the current moment. The world is being battered by ever-increasing natural disasters even as the country is undergoing a promising but fragile shift away from fossil fuels. Meanwhile, the public conversation on climate is characterized by confusion, disinformation, and malaise.
Climate funders aren’t alone. Nonprofit and foundation leaders across the social sector are struggling with how to respond during this time of ongoing crises and political realignment. What should philanthropy do when a major lever for change — the federal government — is under attack by its leader?
Beyond the Drama
There is no simple answer. But five principles for action will help foundation and nonprofit leaders lift their heads out of the Washington drama and build a climate strategy equal to the climate crisis.
Spend now. Cognitive dissonance characterizes climate work. Rising temperatures require immediate action. The ClimateWorks Foundation recently noted that humanity is halfway through the “decisive decade” of 2020 to 2030, in which meaningful progress must be made to avoid the worst effects of climate change. And yet climate funders and nonprofits plan and budget as if they will exist forever. This disconnect undermines their credibility, effectiveness, and psychological clarity.
In recent years, foundations have watched their endowments climb faster than inflation — a strategic and moral error in the face of a compounding problem such as climate change. The planet’s feedback loops make action now more valuable than action later: Rising temperatures melt permafrost, releasing long-buried greenhouse gases, which in turn accelerate warming, melting more permafrost, and so on.
A few funders have recognized that when it comes to climate, money squirreled away is money losing value. For example, in 2023, the Chorus Foundation completed a 17-year spend-down and distributed its remaining assets to frontline climate organizations. The climate-justice nonprofit Taproot Earth has announced a sunset date of 2030 to align its strategy and spending with the urgency of the climate crisis. More foundations and nonprofits should follow these organizations’ lead.
Rethink existing structures. The United States has approximately 15,000 nonprofits working to address the climate crisis and about 7,000 foundations funding that work, according to Candid.
The world needs all the people and passion behind these organizations. But climate groups also need to be structured to effectively address the scale and complexity of the crisis. If a nonprofit’s current configuration isn’t getting the necessary results, it’s time to set aside egos and make a change. That may require consolidating into fewer nonprofits through mergers or acquisitions to share resources and maximize results. Or it could mean spinning off a new organization to bring greater focus to a given strategy.
For example, in 2021, Laurene Powell Jobs carved out her climate philanthropy into a separate entity, the Waverly Street Foundation, with a mandate to spend its $3.5 billion by 2035. This structure allowed Powell Jobs to provide grants quickly and efficiently.
Foundations can directly support such efforts by funding the creation of new organizational structures and supporting the transition work necessary to accomplish that goal. And they can tap intermediary funders such as ClimateWorks, the European Climate Foundation, and the Hive Fund, which pool resources, aggregate expertise, and streamline application and reporting practices.
Show trust. Since 2019, MacKenzie Scott has set a weighty example for philanthropy by giving away $19 billion in a grant-making process defined by trust. Most of her gifts are in the form of large, multiyear, general-operating-support grants. This approach isn’t just a gesture of respect. It also offers significant strategic advantages, according to research from the Center for Effective Philanthropy.
Similarly, when climate funders provide grants for general operating support, they demonstrate their trust in climate nonprofits, opening up the potential for more effective partnerships between grantees. This, in turn, can help overcome a problem common to the climate field — analysis paralysis, in which grant makers and grantees get caught in endless cycles of planning, which delays action and reinforces isolated strategies. With greater trust, funders and nonprofits can rely on the planning done by others, adopting the existing work of peer organizations instead of creating yet another new plan.
Stop bickering. Climate change can’t be solved by any single strategy. But for too long, the climate movement has been wracked by infighting across different strategies. That includes tensions between grassroots, justice-oriented groups and the large national organizations, such as the Sierra Club and the Nature Conservancy, known as the “big greens.” It can also be seen in conflicts over geoengineering, carbon taxes, and more.
The recent spate of government attacks on climate work proves yet again that everyone in the climate field needs to be on the same team. Climate justice nonprofits confronting the unequal impact of the climate crisis across race and class are just as important as research and advocacy organizations building an economic case for a green future.
The climate world needs to avoid bickering and recognize the value brought by each approach, from local activism to global summits. As Walt Whitman said, “I contain multitudes.” So can climate philanthropy.
Consider the whole picture. Climate change is too complex for a centralized, top-down approach. It’s a web of interconnected problems that affect various systems in different ways.
For the next four years, a whole-of-government approach to the climate crisis is unlikely. So be it. Regardless of who is in office, the field needs to shift to a whole-of-society strategy. The fight against climate change has long been led by scientists, activists, and lawyers. But the HVAC technicians installing heat pumps and farmers adopting regenerative practices are just as essential, as are partners in the business, religion, and military arenas. Nonprofits and foundations are surrounded by potential allies — they just need to invite them to the table and work with them to create solutions.
Focusing on domestic politics is not only depressing, but it also fails to acknowledge the reality that greenhouse gases do not respect man-made borders. The climate crisis requires a planetary perspective that links household to neighborhood to city to nation, all the way up to the shared atmosphere. Each level has moral value and deserves attention.
Climate philanthropy pressed the pause button to take a breath. It’s time to press play.
