We are keen to hear from interested parties on enviro-philanthropy and views on other issues facing society that we should feature in a dedicated column: please email editor@philanthropyuk.org.
Copenhagen: Unmitigated disaster or first steps?
Harriet Williams of the Environmental Funders Network offers a ringside view of the Cop15 UN Climate Summit and suggests the outcome was more positive than the headlines suggest.
One month after the UN climate summit closed amid chaos and recriminations, philanthropists along with the rest of the green movement are still digesting what it all means. Is multilateral environmentalism dead? Has the chance to avert catastrophic climate change passed? Where do we go from here?
The temptation is to downplay Copenhagen and what many thought it promised, to wit a sweeping, equitable and single global deal.
The agreement that finally limped off the negotiating table in Copenhagen, which failed to establish a legally binding commitment for nations to cut emissions, was pronounced a “disastrous failure” by some. Elsewhere there were brave faces, if not bravado, as world leaders described the vague language around cutting emissions and raising finance as “important first steps”. Firmer progress on deforestation and auditing emissions cuts provided more substantial comforts for some.
But funders should not be too quick to step away from the crime scene – look carefully and there are seeds of change among the rubble.
In parts of the blogosphere there is palpable relief that we can put aside the need for some grand deal, and re-focus on where the real carbon savings lie, via domestic action in the US, China and other big polluters.
This need not materially alter grants strategy for many environmental funders, whose policy work is already focused chiefly on their own backyards. In the US, for example, the majority of funders were far more occupied last year with getting a federal Climate Bill passed than with preparations for Copenhagen.
In Europe, the ‘backyard’ may not extend even beyond national borders – given how much environmental policy is now determined at EU level, the proportion of grantmaking directed towards Brussels is vanishingly small, and one reason that the European Climate Foundation was set up in 2007.
The priority placed on national action is understandable. There is very little money to go around (climate change receives just 0.3 % of trust giving in the case of the UK, according to the Environmental Funder’s Network latest annual survey Where The Green Grants Went 4 and in the absence of strong policies in major states, there is no prospect of reaching a strong global deal.
As the dust settles on Copenhagen, there is a strong case for upping business as usual, with funders getting behind domestic or bilateral initiatives designed to tackle specific emissions sources, one at a time. This is an essential and pragmatic response, but would it be missing a trick to leave it there?
The re-domestication of global climate policy raises questions of what to do about two major developments in public opinion, evident at Copenhagen.
The first was the emergence of a distinct voice around climate justice, as island states led by tiny Tuvalu demanded emissions cuts sufficient to stop their countries going under water. Their wealthier brethren demurred, forcing the negotiations to a temporary halt. Whether Tuvalu’s position was brave or naïve is a moot point, but concern over the distribution of climate change causes and effects crystallised forcefully at Copenhagen, both inside the negotiations and in the protests outside.
Related to this we saw a strengthening of the global grassroots movement, with 100,000 people marching in Copenhagen itself, one million taking part in coordinated protests around the world and over 13 million petitioning for a strong climate agreement.
The social movement that sprung up around Copenhagen could open pathways to aligning policy with the wider public interest. As former US Vice President Al Gore said at the conference, the political challenge lies in making climate realities “palpable and personal”.
How to harness this show of strength towards more ambitious change may ultimately prove the conference’s more challenging legacy for environmental grantmakers.
The debriefs on Copenhagen will continue for weeks to come, as foundations talk to one another and their grantees. Some funders will buckle down to specific pieces of climate policy. Others will mull over the building of a broader social movement. Hopefully, these conversations will overlap – in this, philanthropy could benefit from some globalisation itself via new forums for international discussion.
Great expectations may be out of vogue following Copenhagen, but the need to bring carbon emissions down to safe levels – not just those that suit current economic interests – is urgent. It is important that funders redouble their efforts in this direction, now.
Cop15 Official Site
Harriet Williams helps coordinate the Environmental Funders Network, the views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of the of the Network
Green Giving News
Philanthropic response to climate change ‘inadequate’, says report
Soros to invest $1bn in clean energy and $100m in forming climate change policy
TFN London event smashes target, raising £54,000 to combat climate change
World's wealthy are investing green
