Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations

Abstract

This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    Pew Research Center Poll - October 2012

  2. 2.

    The coding sheet, procedures, and list of selected organizations are provided in the Supplemental Material, Tables S-1 to S-3, pages 2–4.

  3. 3.

    For a full explanation of the funding data analysis, see the Methodological Appendix, page 117 in the Supplemental Material.

  4. 4.

    IRS Category Descriptions:

    501(c)(3) Religious, educational, charitable, scientific, or literary organizations; testing for public safety organizations. Also, organizations preventing cruelty to children or animals, or fostering national or international amateur sports competition

    501(c)(4) Civic leagues, social welfare organizations, and local associations of employees

    501(c)(5) Labor, agriculture, and horticultural organizations

    501(c)(6) Business leagues, chambers of commerce, and real estate boards

  5. 5.

    The detailed data is provided in the Supplemental Material. Table S-6 (pages 39-42) lists grant totals by year made by foundations. Table S-7 (pages 43–44) lists recipient organizations of grants by year. Table S-8 (45–78) lists foundation grants to specific organizations, and Table S-9 (pages 79–112) lists organizations that received grants by foundation.

References

  1. Anheier H, Daly S (2005) Philanthropic foundations; a new global force? In: Anheier J, Glasius M, Kaldor M (eds) Global civil society 2004/5. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 158–176

    Google Scholar 

  2. Antonio RJ, Brulle RJ (2011) The unbearable lightness of politics: climate change denial & political polarization. Sociol Q 52:195–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Austin A (2002) Advancing accumulation and managing its discontents: the U.S. antienvironmental countermovement. Sociol Spectr 22:71–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC (2002) UCINET for windows: software for social network analysis. Analytic Technologies, Harvard

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brass D (1992) Power in organizations: a social network perspective. Res Polit Soc 4:295–323

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brulle RJ (2014) The development, structure, and influence of the U.S. national climate change movement. In: Wolinsky Y (ed) Climate change policy and civil society. Congressional Quarterly Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  7. Colwell MAC (1993) Private foundations and public policy: the political role of philanthropy. Garland Publishing Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cook KS, Whitmeyer JM (1992) Two approaches to social structure: exchange theory and network analysis. Annu Rev Sociol 18:109–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dunlap RE, Jacques PJ (2013) Climate change denial books and conservative think tanks: exploring the connection. Am Behav Sci 57

  10. Dunlap RE, McCright AM (2011) Organized climate change denial. In: Dryzek J, Norgaard R, Schlosberg D (eds) The oxford handbook of climate change and society. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 144–160

    Google Scholar 

  11. Elsasser S, Dunlap RE (2013) Leading voices in the Denier Choir: conservative columnists’ dismissal of global warming and denigration of climate science. Am Behav Sci 57

  12. Fligstein N, McAdam D (2012) A theory of fields. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fuchs S (2001) Against essentialism: a theory of culture and society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gale R (1986) Social Movements and the state: the environmental movement, countermovement, and government agencies. Sociol Perspect 29(2)

  15. Gulati R, Gargiulo M (1999) Where do interorganizational networks come from? Am J Sociol 104(5):1439–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hoplin M, Robinson R (2008) Funding fathers: the unsung heroes of the conservative movement. Regnery Publishing, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  17. International Energy Agency (2012) World energy outlook 2012. International Energy Agency, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jacques PJ, Dunlap RE, Freeman M (2008) The organization of denial: conservative think tanks and environmental skepticism. Env Polit 17(3):349–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jenkins JC (1983) Resource mobilization theory and the study of social movements. Annu Rev Sociol 9:527–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Knight G, Greenberg J (2011) Talk of the enemy: adversarial framing and climate change discourse. Soc Mov Stud 10(4):323–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Knoke D (1990) Political networks: the structural perspective. Cambridge University Press

  22. Knoke D, Yang S (2008) Social network analysis. Sage, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  23. Levy D, Egan D (2003) A Neo-Gramscian approach to corporate political strategy: conflict and accommodation in the climate change negotiations. J Manag Stud 40:4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lo CYH (1982) Countermovements and conservative movements in the contemporary U.S. Annu Rev Sociol 8:107–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lounsbury M, Ventresca MJ, Hirsch PM (2003) Social movements, field frames and industry emergence: a cultural-political perspective on U.S. recycling. Soc Econ Rev 1:71–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. McCarthy J, Britt D, Wolfson M (1991) The institutional channeling of social movements in the United States. Res Soc Mov Confl Chang 13:45–76

    Google Scholar 

  27. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2000) Challenging global warming as a social problem: an analysis of the conservative movement’s counter-claims. Soc Probl 47(4):499–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2003) Defeating Kyoto: the conservative movement’s impact on U.S. climate change policy. Soc Probl 50(3):348–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Meyer DS, Staggenbord S (1996) Movements, countermovements, and the structure of political opportunity. Am J Sociol 101(6)

  30. Minkoff D, Agnone J (2010) Consolidating social change: the consequences of foundation funding for developing social movement infrastructures. In: Anheier H, Hammack D (eds) American foundations: roles and contributions. Brookings Press, Washington, pp 347–367

    Google Scholar 

  31. National Intelligence Council (2012) Global trends 2030: alternative worlds. Central Intelligence Agency, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  32. National Research Council (2012) Climate and social stress; implications for security analysis. National Academy of Sciences, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  33. National Research Council (NRC) (2011) America’s climate choices. National Academies Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  34. National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) (1997) Moving a Public Policy Agenda: The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations, Washington DC

  35. Oreskes N, Conway EM (2010) Merchants of doubt. Bloomsbury Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  36. Snow D (1992) Inside the environmental movement: meeting the leadership challenge. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  37. Stefanic J, Delgado R (1996) No mercy: how conservative think tanks and foundations changed America’s social agenda. Temple University Press, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  38. Walker JL (1991) Mobilizing interest groups in America: patrons, professions, and social movements. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  39. World Bank (2012) Turn down the heat: why a 4°C world must be avoided. World Bank, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ylvisaker N (1987) Foundations and nonprofit organizations. In: Powell WW (ed) The nonprofit sector: a research handbook. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert J. Brulle.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 2.06 mb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brulle, R.J. Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations. Climatic Change 122, 681–694 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Carbon Emission
  • Social Movement
  • Trade Association
  • Anthropogenic Climate Change
  • Resource Mobilization