Environmental philanthropy is a vastly underfunded industry. In fact, one study conducted by Philanthropy New Zealand found that out of 412 organizations that identified themselves as funding the environment only 4% of their philanthropic donations actually went to the environment (Philanthropy New Zealand). This is consistent with other studies which attest that only 4-6% of all Western philanthropy goes towards the environment with an even smaller contribution of 2% globally. So, why does the environment receive such meager donations and what can we collectively do to change this?
Some funders and grant makers say the issue isn't lack of funds or denial of applications, but rather a lack of environmental applicants. An executive from Wellington Community Trust speaks to the vicious cycle created "because we [grant-makers] are not explicit enough in telling them we fund [the environment], and then because people don't ask for it, we fund less" (Wellington Community Trust). So if the issue is that environmental organizations don't think they'll receive grants, what must be done to invigorate them and change their minds? First and foremost, grant-makers need to reach out to local environmental agencies and establish what sort of projects they will and won't fund. This is crucial in creating any sort of grant but is imperative in encouraging more outreach from environmental foundations. These discussions should be two sided and also allow environmental organizations to explain where they have gaps that require funding. Finally, funders must collaborate and ensure that they use an environmental lens in creating all of their grants. They must confirm that they have donated an appropriate percent of their capital to environmental causes while also examining every other grant and asking "have we considered the environmental impacts this may cause?"
One environmental agency is called The Ocean Cleanup. Their mission is to rid the Earth's oceans of plastic. Specifically, their founder and CEO, Boyan Slat, claimed he could clean up The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a vortex of garbage in the Pacific Ocean measuring twice the size of Texas, in five years. Slat's plan centers around a floating U-shaped device he created that mimics the natural movements of plastic in ocean currents and traps waste so it can later be collected and removed. His agency receives no government funding and is supported almost entirely by sponsors and donations.
Unfortunately, the environment is relying more and more on philanthropy's contributions. Just today, President Trump proposed yet another budget cut that would eliminate 50 EPA programs (a 26% cut), decimate environmental research and development funding, and allow Big Oil and Gas companies to opt out of environmental testing. Philanthropy has a special position and power because it is not hindered by elections and bureaucracy like our government. It is the duty of philanthropists and grant-makers everywhere to make sure we invest in our environment. By investing in the environment, we invest in the future, our collective future, here on this planet. Because no matter what else we accomplish, it will all be for nothing if we don't have a home to live on.
--Ryan Marrone
Some funders and grant makers say the issue isn't lack of funds or denial of applications, but rather a lack of environmental applicants. An executive from Wellington Community Trust speaks to the vicious cycle created "because we [grant-makers] are not explicit enough in telling them we fund [the environment], and then because people don't ask for it, we fund less" (Wellington Community Trust). So if the issue is that environmental organizations don't think they'll receive grants, what must be done to invigorate them and change their minds? First and foremost, grant-makers need to reach out to local environmental agencies and establish what sort of projects they will and won't fund. This is crucial in creating any sort of grant but is imperative in encouraging more outreach from environmental foundations. These discussions should be two sided and also allow environmental organizations to explain where they have gaps that require funding. Finally, funders must collaborate and ensure that they use an environmental lens in creating all of their grants. They must confirm that they have donated an appropriate percent of their capital to environmental causes while also examining every other grant and asking "have we considered the environmental impacts this may cause?"
One environmental agency is called The Ocean Cleanup. Their mission is to rid the Earth's oceans of plastic. Specifically, their founder and CEO, Boyan Slat, claimed he could clean up The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a vortex of garbage in the Pacific Ocean measuring twice the size of Texas, in five years. Slat's plan centers around a floating U-shaped device he created that mimics the natural movements of plastic in ocean currents and traps waste so it can later be collected and removed. His agency receives no government funding and is supported almost entirely by sponsors and donations.
Unfortunately, the environment is relying more and more on philanthropy's contributions. Just today, President Trump proposed yet another budget cut that would eliminate 50 EPA programs (a 26% cut), decimate environmental research and development funding, and allow Big Oil and Gas companies to opt out of environmental testing. Philanthropy has a special position and power because it is not hindered by elections and bureaucracy like our government. It is the duty of philanthropists and grant-makers everywhere to make sure we invest in our environment. By investing in the environment, we invest in the future, our collective future, here on this planet. Because no matter what else we accomplish, it will all be for nothing if we don't have a home to live on.
--Ryan Marrone
I’m actually working on a “global warming” mini-research paper right now, so I understand how you feel. I totally agree with you that not much is being done to cater for the environment. A huge number of people, including those living in the developed parts of the world, still haven’t accepted the fact that the planet is gradually deteriorating. Some just don’t care. “People,” according to the author of the article Why don’t we care more? “underestimate the odds that seemingly distant threats like climate change will hurt any of us personally.” If they can’t stop assuming that the world is perfect the way it is, how and why would they even bother about investing a "decent amount" of money in the environment. This attitude is scary, to be honest. The planet, without doubt, isn’t the way it was 30 years ago. Many scientists, including a number of Nobel laureates, continue to emphasize the fact that the earth is in a very bad shape, and something needs to be done. Yet, most pro-capitalism advocates, including President Trump, choose to do nothing concerning this issue. They choose to continue with their environmentally degrading practices. Factory workers and owners also aren't excused from this. “[Most] Factories,” according to John Peterson, “release destructive gases, contributing to the depletion of ozone in the upper atmosphere where it is needed.” The sea level keeps rising, sea ice and glaciers keep melting, and Africa keeps getting warmer as a result of this. The earth needs help.
ReplyDeleteI actually think people have the money and resources needed to solve this issue, but most don’t have the drive to do so. Most nonprofit organizations in Broome County, for instance, care less about this issue. It’s just not on top of most people’s list. What then is the solution to this issue? More facts? Definitely not. To be sincere, I don’t have a rigid solution to this issue because most people would probably continue to damage the planet. Many people still assume that the environment is not worth spending much money on, so what’s the point. I just hope that a day would come when Americans would consider donating their money to those who have the zeal and determination to tackle this impossible issue.
Victor Okedoyin.
I really liked how you introduced a new subcategory of philanthropy for us to examine, especially because I personally was unaware of the lack of funding provided to environmental organizations. I mostly assumed that these organizations were largely supported by the government/taxpayers' funds since this is an issue that concerns us all.
ReplyDeleteIt's unfortunate that our EPA programs are being cut, and that environmental initiatives are becoming more dependent on philanthropic efforts because I think that others are also under the impression that someone with more power/money will take care of the problems. Judging from the breakdown of NPOs in Group 1's presentation that we saw, a lot of organizations that are established and given attention do not focus on environmental issues. From your post, I think that there should definitely be more awareness about these organizations so that we could break the cycle between grant-makers and organizations.
It's also an interesting perspective to see philanthropy as an investment. Most of the time, I think of it as a way to help others who are in crisis. For example, one of the criteria that my group decided on was "urgency" and how urgently a community needs money. But the problem with environmental issues is that people do not see the "urgency" in these problems because they have not yet felt the consequences. Because this problem is global, what if organizations started within small communities and concentrated on efforts in one place? Would short-term initiatives motivate people to donate? How can environmental organizations bring more awareness to their missions and demonstrate where the money would go to?
This post also reminded me of a video I saw a few years ago, of Darrell Blatchley's whale which turned into an art installation. Blatchley brought a whale back to his lab, in which he found more than 88 pounds of plastic waste in the stomach. To bring awareness to this issue of plastic waste and the effect it has on our marine life and ecosystem, artists Joel Stockdill and Yustina Salnikova built a life-size whale out of plastic in order to educate people. Even so, these issues are pushed to the back of our minds in the present day.
^Maggie Wang
DeleteIt's shocking to hear that only about 4% of philanthropic donations in Western philanthropy go towards supporting to the environment. It is very difficult to process that, as environmental issues are so prevalent in today's society.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though some philanthropists with capability of donating to environmental organizations may not realize the fundamental importance of environmental protection compared to other issues they see in their communities. But people forget that if we do not take care of our environment, there will be no more communities.
An argument that is also being made is that environmental philanthropy has to keep up to date with social media and other forms of social data. An article that expresses that concern is "Tracking the Field of Environmental Philanthropy" (https://ssir.org/articles/entry/tracking_the_field_of_environmental_philanthropy). If we want philanthropists to truly care about environmental problems, it is critical we use all new technology to spread our concerns.
I agree with you that it is essential that we take care of the Earth first. And I think it is dangerous to cut programs that support our environment in our government. We have to put more money in environmental funding. No question about that.
Brendan Hurley