How Philanthropy Must Address the Climate Emergency

(Photo by iStock/brians101)

When I teach courses on theories of change and systems thinking in philanthropic giving, I introduce the students to the Cynefin framework, a heuristic device that divides problems into groups—simple, complicated, complex, or chaotic (sometimes referred to as wicked)—according to two axes: the level of certainty about the problem and the level of agreement of society about its causes and solutions. The point is to consider whether a course of philanthropic action requires systems thinking. Ensuring a city has traffic lights that work may be complicated, for example, but reversing the melting of polar ice caps, or saving the snow leopard habitats in the mountains of China, is a complex problem, something unique and never solved before. Solving complex or chaotic problems requires systems thinking and systems approaches—not least addressing root causes, appreciating multiple perspectives on any problem or solution, shifting mental models and norms, testing innovations, and radical collaboration.

In January 2020, the world entered a new decade with what environmentalists had already dubbed the “super year for nature.” Halting climate change and reversing biodiversity loss are complex problems that require the utmost effort and collaboration on a whole host of levels. And in the face of such existential threats to our planet, philanthropy can and should do more than fund interventions at the project or program level. As the youth-led climate movement has pushed us to acknowledge, the philanthropic community must match the urgency of the moment and step up.

Yet how can a sector whose institutions are generally slow to take on new approaches possibly adapt to the urgency of the problem of climate change?

“Intersectionality Is Reality”

They can start by dismantling silos across the sector. At the Peoples’ Summit on Climate, Rights and Human Survival—the first-ever global summit on human rights and climate change—the phrase “intersectionality is reality” became an instant meme amongst attendees. Originally coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw over 30 years ago, analyzing how black women were often marginalized by both the feminist and civil rights movements, “intersectionality” refers to the interconnected nature of categorizations like race, class, and gender and how they create overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage. The phrase captures how crucial it will be for philanthropy to understand and build overlapping and interdependent categories like race, class, and gender into their funding streams.

Systems thinking and practice require funders to appreciate and incorporate how such categories, and the power dynamics they trigger, affect the communities and program partners they support. In the domain of climate change and environmental funding, individual funders and program partners have often—helpfully—had a long-term perspective and commitment. But they have not always appreciated the concepts behind intersectionality, and how interventions and solutions can burden, rather than help, some communities who lack the power to influence those funders.

“Climate justice” is another increasingly common term for the link between human rights and social justice to how humanity must mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change, but climate justice will require collaboration to succeed. And so Amnesty International, Greenpeace, and many more advocates in the fields of environment and human rights have recently committed to “radical collaboration,” urging funders to weave together different sectors, constituencies, and levels of advocacy targets. Some 200 of these environment and human rights advocates signed a declaration outlining shared concerns, a joint vision, and common policy commitments to achieve. These include the process of creating a just, fair, and inclusive transition away from fossil fuels and towards sustainable agriculture and renewable energy.

For true climate justice to be achievable, however, progress must also empower, not disenfranchise, the communities who so often stand to lose out in transitional energy strategies. These are the communities in states and regions still reliant on fossil fuel industries, from Ohio and West Virginia across to Wyoming; these are rural communities in countries like Mozambique and Kenya, whose land rights have not been formally recognized and respected by their governments. Green energy and carbon offset projects that address the existential threat to all of humanity can also, in particular, exacerbate local problems facing these communities. For example, the largest wind farm in the world, near Lake Turkana in Kenya, failed to recognize the Turkana and other peoples who live within the concession as indigenous, so the usual Free Prior and Informed Consent process that helps safeguard the economic, social and cultural rights of affected communities during such projects was avoided. As a result, the project fueled tension between communities vying for scarce jobs and goodwill investments, while, ironically, the local area does not receive energy produced by the project.

To exponentially expand renewable energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and halt the loss of biodiversity, philanthropy’s best approach will be to fund the burgeoning networks that have a thoughtful and nuanced understanding of the complexity and the trade-offs. Some are funder collaborations such as the Climate Justice Resilience Fund and the Hive Fund for Climate and Gender Justice. Others are led by activists like the Climate Justice Alliance, the Indigenous Environmental Network, and the North Carolina Environmental Justice Network.

After an unusual amount of reflection and self-criticism, the sector is urging faster and deeper action on protecting the planet while also protecting disadvantaged communities. And philanthropists are experimenting with new approaches to their work that help put human rights at the core of climate activism and demanding that all government climate policies, measures and actions respect, protect, and fulfill human rights. Indications of progress, while modest, are emerging. For example, a clearinghouse for climate change funding at Inside Philanthropy includes funders who are “building climate equity through an intersectional lens.” The Human Rights Funders Network includes a working group on environmental justice, climate change and human rights. And the Global Alliance for the Future of Food very much weaves together nature and people as one interdependent system. Yet the growing climate justice movement in philanthropy has some way to go to build to ensure the concept of intersectionality takes hold.

Many foundation program officers and on-the-ground climate movement representatives are pushing for more, and more effective, funding flows to locally-rooted networks, and shifting the practices and behaviors at the most senior, strategic ranks of philanthropies, at the CEO, trustee, and investment committee levels. Will they support long-term movement building where the question of who is at the table is as important as where the table is set? Is intersectionality a principle that will take hold amongst those who govern the philanthropy sector? Can the race to invest in renewables become mindful of the pillars of a just transition, with all the understanding of nuances that requires?

A Transformational Moment

The COVID-19 pandemic provides a unique moment for a transformational shift in how environmental and social goals are linked to build a more just and resilient future. A growing cohort of environmentalists, while seeing an opportunity for significant behavior change post-crisis, are taking care to include unjust treatment of workers alongside sustainability shortcomings in their analysis of causes and solutions. And those who have long criticized the social problems and precarity of work in global supply chains are pointing out that now is the time to bring higher standards on both social and environmental measures into the post-COVID world. The Planetary Emergency Partnership, too, points to the convergence of global social inequalities, the climate crisis, and vast biodiversity loss.

As one participant in the Peoples’ Summit last September said, we need, “a global community that is so allergic to injustice and abuse of human rights that we will feel it everywhere, making bonds that are stronger, and creating new methods of fighting.”

Read more stories by Heather Grady.