Recently, two prominent, pro-climate-action Republicans — Carlos Curbelo, former U.S. representative for Florida, and Neil Chatterjee, former commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission — were in the pages of the Chronicle of Philanthropy encouraging the sector to fund the “eco-right.” In an op-ed, the pair wrote that supporting right-leaning climate groups is the “highest leverage opportunity” for funders eager to reduce emissions.
It almost goes without saying that Republicans have stood in near-total opposition to climate legislation for decades, with some state leaders going so far as to block municipalities from taking action. Climate denialism and doublespeak remains practically a prerequisite for ambitious members of the GOP. And although the authors applauded the Inflation Reduction Act’s climate investments, not a single member of their party voted for the legislation, the biggest climate bill in history. Yes, the IRA was a huge bundle of Democratic priorities, but it’s hard to imagine the climate components would have cleared a Republican filibuster on their own. All of which is to say, a bipartisan path to decarbonization has, at best, some very tough terrain to traverse.
At the same time, the duo rightly note that several recent climate-related bills — $1.2 trillion for infrastructure, subsidies for semiconductors, a phase out of hydrofluorocarbons — passed with bipartisan support. And we know no legislative act is safe in the long term without support from both sides of the aisle. Consider the continued efforts to chip away at the Affordable Care Act.
Whether philanthropy should increase such support is a question that deserves its own debate. In the meantime, their op-ed made us at Inside Philanthropy want to take a closer look at who, exactly, is funding the eco-right.
While environmental donors are often characterized as lefties, for as long as climate philanthropy has existed, mainstream funders have displayed a strong desire to foster a bipartisan, technocratic climate movement. (Apolitical may be a better way to describe this leaning, which some of us at IP have criticized over the years.) For that matter, some of the biggest grantees in environmental philanthropy, like the EDF and the Nature Conservancy, could be described as centrist, if not center-right. But it’s true that the ecosystem of truly conservative climate change nonprofits and their funders is pretty small.
Which raises the question of which grantees should be counted as members of the eco-right. While the term is used as a pejorative by some on the denialist far right, it’s a label embraced by Curbelo and Chatterjee, who defined it as “the field of climate-forward, conservative nonprofits that is uniquely positioned to push, pull and guide Republicans to climate leadership and bipartisan policy wins.”
In other words, it comprises a range of organizations led by self-identified conservatives with a goal of marshaling more Republican support for climate action, often with a market-based or even faith-oriented lens. Incidentally, the term should be distinguished from “ecofascism,” or the white supremacist ideology that makes environmental claims in service of anti-immigrant ideology, which has a set of far-right funders.
Curbelo and Chatterjee listed three eco-right organizations in their piece, but the critics from the extreme right wing have assembled an impressively detailed (if comically alarmist) 84-page dossier, “Rise of the Eco-Right.” I’ve used the groups named by one or both sources, with some admittedly unscientific omissions, such as regional groups or major green groups (The Nature Conservancy), the latter of which would pull in half of environmental philanthropy. The result is a list of eight funders who have sent checks to branches of this movement.
Based on what I found, the leading funder of the eco-right is an unusual suspect, or at least one that gets relatively little press for its climate funding. Yet the bigger story may be that much of the list is mostly made up of top 40 climate funders, including several institutions known for left-leaning or even progressive funding. It’s important to note that despite the big names below, the total amounts involved are relatively small.
It should also be noted that this is a quick survey based on public grants databases. There are likely more funders of this movement out there, whether major founders who are less transparent about their funding or smaller ones who do not have the resources or inclination to list their grantees online. A thorough review would likely find more.
Again, the merits and risks of such funding warrants its own examination, but for now, here’s a look at who’s funding the eco-right and what groups are landing support based on foundations’ public grant databases.
Arnold Ventures
The philanthropy of the billionaires John and Laura Arnold plays perhaps the most publicly supportive role in backing the eco-right. The former hedge fund manager (John) and lawyer (Laura) have both seeded new groups with their financing and provided many of the biggest checks of any of the funders mentioned here.
One of their most significant climate recipients over the past three years has been the Washington, D.C.-based ClearPath, a nonprofit focused on public-private partnerships for accelerating energy and industrial innovation. Its leadership has conservative credentials, with the group’s CEO serving on the board of the Conservative Climate Foundation, while its advisors include a former Marco Rubio strategist. The Arnolds have given the group and its action fund $8.5 million since 2019, and an Arnold Ventures vice president serves on the ClearPath advisory board.
Another major grantee is Climate Leadership Council, which advocates for a carbon dividends plan promoted by former secretaries of state James A. Baker and George P. Shultz, among others, and whose founding members include oil giants BP, Shell and ConocoPhillips, among other major emitters. Over the past five years, the Arnolds have sent it $4.5 million in support.
An even newer group, Young Conservatives for Carbon Dividends, got off the ground in 2019 thanks to a three-year, $500,000 grant — its first-ever award — from the Arnolds, according to the philanthropy’s website and the nonprofit’s first IRS filing. The group, in its founders words, hopes to “lay the groundwork for a free-market climate breakthrough.”
MacArthur Foundation
This Chicago-based grantmaking giant has sent some serious money to the eco-right. Its Climate Solutions program granted $2 million apiece over the past four years to Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions Forum, the research and 501(c)(3) fundraising arm of an advocacy group that works to build Republican support for “market-friendly” action on climate change, and the Conservative Energy Network, a network of right-leaning state-based groups in favor of clean energy.
The Energy Foundation
As one of the field’s top intermediaries, Energy Foundation has channeled more than $4 million to the Conservative Energy Network since 2017. It’s also directed about $450,000 to the famously libertarian George Mason University “to support education and outreach to build a clean energy future.” The school’s Center for Climate Change Communication runs RepublicEn, a self-identified eco-right project. All in all, the San Francisco-based foundation is one of the field’s largest conduits for eco-right support.
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
This $4.4 billion philanthropy’s environmental program might be called centrist, ranging from grants for international aid to support for regional organizations in the Midwest. But it also backs one of the most widely well-funded eco-right organizations, the Climate Leadership Council, which it has granted $1.25 million over the past six years, including funds to help it launch.
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
While the field’s largest legacy climate funder is known for its left-leaning environmental funding, including a ramping up of climate justice funding in recent years, it has also made grants to eco-right organizations. Most recently, the American Conservation Coalition Campus, a network that advocates across more than 80 campuses for a free-market approach to clean energy, has received more than $400,000 from Hewlett since 2018.
The Menlo Park, California-based foundation’s most significant eco-right support channeled through a relationship that appears now to have ended. The grantmaker cut $1.4 million in checks to the Christian Coalition and its Young Conservatives for Energy Reform Project between 2013 and 2018. Hewlett also once backed MacArthur-favorite Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions Forum ($400,000) and the Evangelical Environmental Network ($150,000), a network of Christian grassroots groups supporting clean energy.
These sums — particularly when considered on an annual basis — are basically rounding errors in Hewlett’s nearly $300 million environmental program, but they do show its breadth when it comes to political ideology.
Heising-Simons Foundation
While much of this grantmaker’s $24 million climate portfolio supports mainstream green groups, blue-chip universities, and major intermediaries or collaboratives, there are some outliers. On the right side of the aisle is R Street Institute, which the Los Altos, California-based foundation sent more than $800,000 between 2019 and 2021.
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
This philanthropic arm of the famed oil family has a generally lefty climate portfolio. At the same time, it has been a dedicated supporter of the MacArthur and Energy grantee Conservative Energy Network, sending it more than $600,000 in grants since 2017. It’s also a past supporter of Conservatives for Clean Energy and the Christian Coalition’s Young Conservatives for Energy Reform project.
McKnight Foundation
Count this grantmaker, whose climate portfolio is focused on the Midwest, as one more supporter of the Lansing, Michigan-based Conservative Energy Network, which it has granted $600,000 since 2017.
Is your foundation funding the eco-right? Do you know of a grantmaker that should be listed here? Let me know.