A new report shows "disappointing" philanthropic giving to climate causes in 2022
Wow - this is invaluable reporting here, as always. I didn't realize a lot of the impact but after reading this it opened up a bit more of the complexity of climate solutions we need to reach societal and economic tipping points.
Why don't people realize that climate change is impacting every single human on this planet? Unlike any other thing that philanthropy supports...
The wealthy do not care if the earth burns up, but want the public and the people that make policy to favor their interests. The Kochs are the poster children for giving money to organizations so that their name is spread as being a beneficial organization. For years you'd hear their name on NPR as being donors, leading one to believe they were good people. There really needs to be a public disclosure of their carbon footprints versus their donations, so people do not get the idea that these people are anything but selfish money grabbers at the expense of the planet.
Great article! I agree in terms of overall charitable giving, the climate crisis should be taken as more of a priority and the ability of private people to take more risk than politicians is a great point.
Similar to the previous article though, relying on private people is clearly not a path to solving societal problems. So in this case higher taxes are necessary so society can decide where to put this wealth imo.
I am such a fan! Thank you for the incisive reporting and commentaries. On this subject, I missed your comment on in what ways billionaire philanthropists like Bezos target their giving to projects that offer them some greenwashing effect. The fact alone that they are now providing only 2% of their giving to climate related projects and research speaks loudly of the greenwashing intent. But would appreciate a drill down into how what they DO give is directly or indirectly aimed at specific greenwashing PR.
Truly astonishing that capitalism isn't able to solve this problem. [/sarcasm]
Regarding Greenwashing: in your Nov. 2 column/post you showed how Kim's nipple bra pledge was greenwashing--why the parenthetical in this post agreeing with Whoopi that you're "proud of her"?
Hello. I don't "get" what these mega $$$ folks are actually engendering with their gifts. All I know is they have pledged billions, but what have the effected?
Heat Pumps for Humanity, anyone? IMHO, the philanthropic funds and givers should not focus on "risky investments." Help fund large, simple programs for deployment of existing renewable, efficiency and electrification tech which already exists, and which is not happening at the rate that's needed. In our little valley we have two non-profits which help folks with this stuff, and they get almost zilch from the local billionaires. Their funding has to come from local gov'ts, who are either strapped, or have a ton of other stuff on their plate.
The "effective altruism" school of thought promotes investing in "risky" climate solutions, claiming these will leverage stuff which might reduce the "green premium." It's becoming clear there will always be a "green premium," so deal with it. Maybe some PR love for NJ offshore wind?
It seems most philanthropists are stuck in some status quo of funding education and health, etc. A good take on this is in Hiassens's "Squeeze Me," which starts at the IBiS ball near Casa Bellicosa in Palm Beach. And on to the pythons and POTUSSIES.