To the Editor:
Marc Gunther’s article (“Foundations Are Losing the Fight Against Climate Change,” February 13) does a disservice to the leaders and staff of major philanthropies that have done remarkable work in the fight against global climate change.
An honest assessment of where we stand today would be welcome, because the sobering truth is that we are in the race of our lives, and the science compels us to do more, faster.
But in Gunther’s article, defeatism masquerades as accountability.
The world has not yet turned the corner toward a safe and stable climate, so the foundations that fund critical work in this area have “failed.” The election of President Trump and his abrogation of U.S. climate commitments are cited as further evidence that “climate philanthropy has failed.” To pass judgment on grant makers based on the current political cycle is to employ a fallacious measure of success.
Gunther’s logic seems to be that because Trump is pulling the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement and canceling the Clean Power Plan, the movement for climate action has lost. By that same measure, it was a success two years ago when the nations of the world came together in Paris and the Obama administration was implementing its plan to limit carbon pollution. The truth is that movements should not be measured by what Obama himself called the “zig and zag” of short-term history.
Gunther ignores a great deal of climate progress in the United States and around the world. Last summer, California extended its successful cap-and-trade program and committed to the most ambitious climate goals in North America. The Republican governor of Illinois has signed clean-energy legislation that will reduce emissions from the state’s power sector by more than 50 percent — a much larger reduction than President Obama’s Clean Power Plan would have delivered. Walmart has committed to reducing carbon emissions from its global supply chain by 1 billion tons, more than the annual emissions for Germany.
Thanks to the funders Gunther disparages, the Environmental Defense Fund was involved in all of those campaigns, and our grass-roots supporters were as well. Such measures by themselves aren’t enough to turn the tide, but they help to maintain momentum while we work to see climate sanity return to Washington, D.C.
Around the world, 42 national and 25 subnational jurisdictions have enacted carbon pricing systems, and China — where EDF has been working for more than 25 years, again thanks to some of the funders mentioned in this piece — has launched what will become the world’s largest carbon market.
Gunther concedes that grass-roots organizing is going on across the climate community, and if he had contacted me, I would have told him about EDF’s 2 million supporters and activists, our field organizers in 23 states, and the 1 million members of our Moms Clean Air Force affiliate — just part of the climate army being rallied by the Sierra Club, 350.org, and so many others, and one that is energized and united in opposition to the current administration. He concludes that because some groups are focused on building support on the left, while others of us work on the left, center, and where possible on the right, this means we are “pulling in opposite directions.”
What Gunther dismisses as a sign of weakness is actually a sign of strength. We need to build support for climate action across the spectrum. After all, 87 percent of U.S. carbon emissions come from states where Republicans have partial or full control of state government. It is the strength and perseverance of climate philanthropies that makes the hard work of social change possible.
I’m sorry that Gunther appears to have given up, but I’m heartened that so many others have not and will not. We surely need to keep improving and stepping up our efforts, but that does not mean all is lost or we are moving backwards.
Indeed, looking at the global progress on clean energy and climate action, our cause finds itself where so many social movements are today — proud of our successes, making real progress everywhere we can, battling President Trump’s dangerous policies, and knowing there is much, much more to be done. We are in the race of our lives, and we will win it.
Fred Krupp
President
Environmental Defense Fund
Washington
To the Editor:
We believe that climate change is the defining issue of our time, requiring a broad-based and inclusive movement. We share Gunther’s concern about action at the federal level in the United States at this time. What deserves attention are new dynamics within U.S. states, leading regions around the world, and global energy markets, where real transformative solutions are driving change.
The innovation economy is advancing in the United States and globally with broad new coalitions. Despite the announced U.S. intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, 194 other countries have signed it. And via America’s Pledge, led by Michael Bloomberg and Gov. Jerry Brown, 2,300 cities, states, and businesses representing half the U.S. economy and population have declared their commitment to emissions-reduction goals.
Consumer groups, environmental-justice groups, labor, health, business, and environmental organizations are all engaged in this progress, with key clean-energy victories achieved recently in Illinois, Nevada, North Carolina, and Ohio. In the past few years, a new norm has emerged in financial markets — and not just in the United States. Coal investment is way down, the competitiveness of renewables even without subsidies is clear, and major investments are driving the rapid price drop and growth in battery markets, both for storage for and vehicles.
The combined efforts of governments, businesses, philanthropy, civil society, and other actors have put us on a path to avoid the most catastrophic predictions of climate change, with warming now predicted to reach roughly 3°C instead of 5°C by the end of this century.
This in itself is a huge victory. Globally, energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions held flat from 2014 to 2016 even as the global economy grew by more than 3 percent. In the United States, climate pollution has peaked and is headed down. In China, emissions have flattened and are projected to peak soon.
Philanthropy continues to play an integral role in supporting the thousands of organizations making many of these local and global victories possible. Funding supports technical assistance, movement building, communications, policy design, advocacy, business engagement, and much more. Foundations offer the opportunity to innovate and scale solutions that work. As grant makers, we know we have more work to do. The progress gained needs to be maintained and expanded equitably.
The stakes are high. Our environment, quality of life, economy, and jobs are on the line. We are tackling climate change to build a safer, healthier, and more prosperous future because it must be done. The fight is far from over, but the opportunity is too great to stop now.
Eric Heitz
CEO and Cofounder,
Energy Foundation
San Francisco
Charlotte Pera
CEO
ClimateWorks Foundation
San Francisco
To the Editor:
Marc Gunther’s article on climate change raises important questions.
Is the world winning on climate change? Yes. We need to go faster, but we have made extraordinary strides in the past decade — in no small measure with philanthropic support.
Indeed, I came to the philanthropic community after more than two decades in government because of its proven ability to help the world achieve its climate goals. Philanthropy has become even more central in the absence of U.S. governmental engagement.
Efforts made over the past several decades have reduced future growth in greenhouse-gas emissions to half of what they would have been. For a problem that engages all parts of our global economy, from energy and transportation to food and forests, the fact that the world has transitioned as quickly as this is astonishing. Philanthropy has contributed to that success by mobilizing public opinion, providing technical input, and supporting grass-roots initiatives around the world.
We also need to be clear that the problem will entail a global solution — the United States is not enough.
The United States represents less than 15 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions; we can’t ignore the other 85 percent. The Paris agreement is a mark of success on that front. It has been adopted by every country except the United States, and virtually all are acting to reduce emissions. China, the world’s largest emitter, has invested hundreds of billions in solar and wind farms, while India is pressing forward on a major program to electrify its vehicle fleet. Philanthropic efforts have been central to supporting these initiatives.
Climate philanthropists are united: There is more to do, and the need to do it is urgent. There isn’t one correct solution; there are a plethora, and every single one needs to be scaled up. Climate change affects every sector of our global economy, and its solutions will need to be equally diverse.
Holding our leaders accountable for protecting all populations and communities from climate change is crucial. Philanthropy must continue to support grass-roots organizing to help mobilize those most vulnerable to and concerned about climate change. And the philanthropic community needs to support campaigns to develop cost-effective solutions to climate change with a broad range of public and private partners that include nongovernmental organizations, business leaders, investors, and state and local governments.
We are halfway to our target, but that remaining half will be tough — and will require all hands on deck. Philanthropy has never been more important.
Jonathan Pershing
Director of the Environment Program
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Pershing is former U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change.
To the Editor:
Marc Gunther’s article points to the inherent tensions between different ways of approaching the political realities of climate action in America. Do you focus on the politics of left and right? Or do you take pains to forge compromise across the aisle?
I’d like to focus on a promising alternative to both these paths: transcending political divides by elevating local, front-line leaders who have the ability to show the country a new way forward.
As Gunther details, the climate movement has tried to use science and technological solutions to attack political and social barriers. These top-down, Beltway-centric efforts aren’t capturing the hearts and minds of American people, in part because they further a gloom-and-doom narrative that can leave people feeling hopeless and in part because they downplay real economic and social tensions in communities across the country. The movement cannot ask coal miners or oil-field workers to happily give up jobs that put food on the table because a new clean energy economy may one day emerge.
It’s time for funders to stand side by side with these workers, and to invest directly in their futures.
At the Solutions Project, we believe that to win big on climate, people need to be invited into a collaborative, inclusive, and celebratory movement that lifts up the voices of those building solutions for a just and sustainable planet through work in their own communities. Leaders from Appalachia to the Deep South to the Midwest are charting a clean energy future for their communities and for our country. If we, as funders, are serious about effecting real, meaningful change, than we need to invest in locally developed, community-based strategies.
The question is not whether the movement should go left or right. It is about standing with those on the diverse, dynamic, and intersecting front line of climate change, and trusting that those most affected can help develop a vision for our future. Early models for transitioning to a cleanenergy economy are already working. In New York, PUSH Buffalo is building community-controlled solar power generation to build wealth among neighbors. In Georgia, the Partnership for Southern Equity is shaping the policy conversation in Atlanta to include both bold clean-energy goals and social equity for all the city’s residents. In Iowa, farmers and landowners are supporting tax breaks for wind and solar energy and becoming leaders of their rural electric co-ops, seizing democratic control of local energy systems.
Climate change is deeply interwoven with social and economic inequity. Those most affected by climate change are also those experiencing predatory policies on immigration, economics, labor, and education. This positions the climate movement to rise above the politics of left and right and, instead, build a movement across the many front lines of social injustice that fully encompasses America’s diversity.
Funders need to move money in ways that reflect the complexity of people’s lives. We need to show up when their safety is threatened. Listening to affected communities, investing in their visions for the future, and using their experience to guide grant-making strategies will be the keys to winning on climate change. Let’s not allow Beltway-style debates between right and left dictate our action on climate change. Instead, we must transcend our politics to build a powerful movement on the front lines of American democracy.
Tyler Nickerson
Director of Investments and State Strategy
Solutions Project
Washington