Recent commentary by former Republican officials has drawn attention to the question of philanthropic funding for engaging right-of-center constituencies on climate change. Writing in the Chronicle of Philanthropy and Politico, former representatives Carlos Curbelo (R-FL), Ryan Costello (R-PA), and Francis Rooney (R-FL), and former Federal Energy Regulatory Committee (FERC) Chairman Neil Chatterjee all cite a 2018 study indicating that less than two percent of philanthropic dollars for climate communications and mobilization goes to engaging conservative communities.

The Bridgespan Group, in their new report, “Winning on Climate Change: How Philanthropy Can Spur Major Progress Over the Next Decade,“ also spotlight this resource imbalance.  

The consequences of this funding disparity are material. As former Congressmen Rooney (who co-chaired the bipartisan House Climate Solutions Caucus) and Costello summarize:

In its work on climate change, the Democratic Party is guided by a formidable civil society apparatus – including think tanks, grassroots organizations and more – that pushes, pulls and applauds Democrats as they act on this issue. There is little equivalent on the right. The small assemblage of organizations that make up the ‘eco-right,’ while growing, receive only a fraction of the funding that left-of-center groups do.

In this analysis, we dig deeper into their claim. Our assessment of the budgets of eco-right organizations suggests that the true figure is significantly less than two percent, and potentially as low as 0.35 percent. (See below for more on this analysis.) Climate philanthropists spent between $6-10 billion on climate change mitigation in 2020. Of this, less than $36 million appears to have gone to eco-right organizations – between 0.35 percent and 0.59 percent.

This finding warrants serious attention from climate funders. Despite the imperative for greater U.S. leadership on climate change — and the rarity of one-party control of government – philanthropists appear to be significantly under-investing in the kind of organizing that can help support bipartisan action on the issue. The U.S. only has two major political parties. And yet, of the billions now flowing to climate-related, education, organizing, and advocacy (itself a small sliver of overall philanthropy), only a rounding error is dedicated to engaging right-of-center constituencies on one of the greatest challenges of our time.

Practically, this funding allocation not only misses an opportunity to build a broader, bipartisan mandate for climate solutions. It also leaves a void that entrenched interests have exploited to promote climate disinformation and delay action. Despite increasingly visible climate impacts, and growing public concern about the issue, sustained bipartisan support for climate policymaking remains elusive. This must change if we are to deliver on the imperative to reduce emissions at speed and scale.

Read the full article about making climate change a priority by Morgan Chrisman and George Gemelas at The Center for Effective Philanthropy.