Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Price of Climate Action pp 1–22Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Following a brief presentation of the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) outcome and reactions to it, the chapter introduces some of the core theoretical debates associated with the study of philanthropic foundations’ involvement in the international climate debate. It looks at how the existence of underlying agendas in foundations raises important legitimacy and accountability concerns. The chapter also analyses philanthropic foundations’ broader societal functions—and in particular their role as field-builders. In a final section, it presents the main issues raised by the book—to what extent and how did foundations shape and orientate the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and international climate regime more broadly? And correspondingly, what influence did foundations wield on the Paris outcome?—and offers an overview of the different chapters.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    “Historic pact to curb emissions is approved” (The Washington Post), “195 countries reach historic deal to combat climate change” (Boston Sunday Globe), “Nations approve landmark climate deal” (The New York Times), “A major leap for mankind: world leaders hail Paris deal on climate” (The Observer), “195 nations sign groundbreaking climate accord to cut fossil fuel use” (Haaretz), “Climate deal offers chance to save world” (Gulf News).

  2. 2.

    As Newell writes, “more conservative ‘inside-insider’ groups […] employ traditional patterns of lobbying and interest representation, […] ‘inside-outsider’ groups […] are involved in the formal policy process but adopt more confrontational strategies to influence it, reflecting different ideologies regarding market mechanisms and the role of the private sector, for example. The final category identified is ‘oustide-outsiders’, which covers the position and strategy of those groups that are not involved in the formal policy negotiations on climate change, but rather seek to draw attention to the impacts of the problem on existing patterns of inequality and social injustice through a variety of campaigning tools and technologies of protest” (Newell 2005, 99–100).

  3. 3.

    The UNFCCC distinguishes between “three categories of participants at meetings and conferences in the UNFCCC process: representatives of Parties to the Convention and Observer States, members of the press and media, and representatives of observer organizations. Observer organizations are further categorized into three types: the United Nations System and its Specialized Agencies, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). IGOs and NGOs can register delegates once they have received observer status, i.e. once they are admitted as observer organizations by the Conference of the Parties (COP).” http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/items/2704.php (accessed 10 April 2016).

  4. 4.

    http://www.centre-francais-fondations.org/events/towards-the-2015-climate-agreement-how-ambitious-will-country-contributions-be (accessed 4 April 2016).

  5. 5.

    http://europeanclimate.org/home/what-we-do/international-policies-politics/ (accessed 5 September 2015).

  6. 6.

    http://www.wwf-jugend.de/leben/praktika-und-jobs/gruene-praktika-und-jobs;6022 (accessed 14 February 2016).

  7. 7.

    The US bias of foundation literature is understandable given their overall importance in the USA and their role in fostering and shaping the US environmental movement.

  8. 8.

    It is interesting to see that this replicates funds like Tides.

  9. 9.

    Interestingly, the CDFE received funding from a number of corporations and foundations that are renowned for their anti-environmental stance (According to its 2003 Corporate Giving Report, ExxonMobil, for instance, donated USD 40,000 to CDFE in 2003 for “global climate change issues”).

  10. 10.

    http://foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/research/keyfacts2014/foundation-focus.html (accessed 9 October 2015).

  11. 11.

    http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/topfunders/top100assets.html (accessed 9 October 2015).

  12. 12.

    http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/topfunders/top100giving.html (accessed 9 October 2015).

  13. 13.

    http://www.efc.be/country_profile/united-kingdom/ (accessed 12 October 2015).

  14. 14.

    The EGA brings together around 200 predominantly US foundations engaged in environmental grantmaking.

  15. 15.

    Hewlett Foundation (30 %), Packard Foundation (18 %), Sea Change Foundation (11 %), Oak Foundation (5 %), Energy Foundation (5 %), Rockefeller Foundation (4%), National Postcode Lottery, Netherlands (3 %).

  16. 16.

    This more active involvement of grantees can take the shape of Grantee Perception Reports (GPR) that offer grant recipients the possibility to share their experiences in working with a foundation (Fleishman 2009, 42).

  17. 17.

    Examples include policy (conflict resolution) and academic fields (area studies, public administration, molecular biology).

Bibliography

  • Allen, Robert. 1969. Black Awakening in Capitalist America. New York: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anheier, Helmut K., and Siobhan Daly. 2004. Philanthropic Foundations: A New Global Force? In Global Civil Society 2004/5, eds. Helmut K. Anheier, Marlies Glasius, and Mary Kaldor, 158–176. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, Ron. 1999. Undue Influence: Wealthy Foundations, Grant-Driven Environmental Groups, and Zealous Bureaucrats that Control Your Future. Bellevue: Enterprise Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnove, Robert. 1980. Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism: The Foundations at Home and Abroad. Boston, MA: G.K. Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bäckstrand, Karin, and Eva Lövbrand. 2015. Research Handbook on Climate Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartley, Tim. 2007. How Foundations Shape Social Movements: The Construction of an Organizational Field and the Rise of Forest Certification. Social Problems 54(3): 229–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, Pierre. 1998. Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brulle, Robert J. 2013. Institutionalizing Delay: Foundation Funding and the Creation of U.S. Climate Change Counter-Movement Organizations. Climatic Changee 122(4): 681–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brulle, Robert J., and Craig Jenkins. 2005. Foundations and the Environmental Movement: Priorities, Strategies, and Impact. In Foundations for Social Change: Critical Perspectives on Philanthropy and Popular Movements, eds. Daniel Faber and McCarthy Debra. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caniglia, Beth Schaefer. 2001. Informal Alliances vs Institutional Ties: The Effects of Elite Alliances on Environmental TSMO Network Positions. Mobilization 6(1): 37–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caniglia, Beth Schaefer, Robert J. Brulle, and Andrew Szasz. 2015. Civil Society, Social Movements and Climate Change. In Climate Change and Society, eds. Riley E. Dunlap and Robert J. Brulle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbon Pulse. 2015. COP-21: Reaction to the Paris Climate Agreement. 12 December. Accessed February 5, 2016. http://carbon-pulse.com/13323/

  • Clotfelter, Charles T., and Thomas Ehrlich. 2001. Philanthropy and the Nonprofit Sector in a Changing America. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, Paul T. 2015. Towards Paris 2015: The Climate Deal We Need. Effect, Autumn: 14–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, Hugh. 2015. Philanthropy and Its Critics: A History. In New Philanthropy and Social Justice: Debating the Conceptual and Policy Discourse, ed. Behrooz Morvaridi, 17–31. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, Matthias, and Heiko Garrelts. 2014. Routledge Handbook of the Climate Change Movement. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodds, Felix, and Michael Strauss. 2004. How to Lobby at Intergovernmental Meetings: Mine’s a Caffe Latte. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowie, Mark. 2001. American Foundations: An Investigative History. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, John S., and Hayley Stevenson. 2014. Democratizing Global Climate Governance. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ECF. 2014. Annual Report 2013. The Hague: European Climate Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • EGA. 2015. Tracking The Field 5. Washington, DC: Environmental Grantmakers Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • EURACOAL. 2015. NGOs for Sale: How the US Super-Rich Influence EU Climate and Energy Policy. Brussels: EURACOAL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faber, Daniel R., and Deborah McCarthy. 2001. Green of Another Color: Building Effective Partnerships Between Foundations and the Environmental Justice Movement. Boston, MA: Northeastern University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fern, Nora, Marc Daudon, Imen Meliane, Amy Solomon, and Kendra White. 2015. Oak Foundation Environment Programme Evaluation: Executive Summary. External Evaluation. Seattle, WA: Cascadia Consulting Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleishman, Joel. 2009. The Foundation: A Great American Secret—How Private Wealth Is Changing the World. New York: PublicAffairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friends of the Earth International. 2015. Where We Stand and Way Forward—Press Conference at COP21. 12 December. Accessed January 2, 2016. http://unfccc6.meta-fusion.com/cop21/events/2015-12-12-14-30-friends-of-the-earth-international-friend-for-the-earth-international-where-we-stand-and-way-forward

  • Frumkin, Peter. 1995. Philanthropy: Strangled Freedom. The American Scholar 64(4): 590–597.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. Strategic Giving: The Art and Science of Philanthropy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goldenberg, Suzanne. 2013. Secret Funding Helped Build Vast Network of Climate Denial Thinktanks. The Guardian, 14 February.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenpeace USA. 2010. Koch Industries Secretely Funding Climate Denial Machine. Washington, DC: Greenpeace USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guilhot, Nicolas. 2006. Financiers, Philanthropes: Sociologie de Wall Street. Paris: Raisons d’Agir.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemphill, Bonnie. 2013. Funding the Next Chapter of the Climate Movement. Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heydemann, Steven, and Stefan Toepler. 2006. Foundations and the Challenge of Legitimacy in Comparative Perspective. In The Legitimacy of Philanthropic Foundations: U.S. and European Perspectives, eds. Kenneth Prewitt, Mattei Dogan, Steven Heydemann, and Stefan Toepler, 3–26. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, Craig J. 1998. Channeling Social Protest: Foundation Patronage of Contemporary Social Movements. In Private Interest and the Public Good, eds. Walter W. Powell and Elisabeth Clemens, 206–216. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, Gary. 2011. Who’s Afraid of Philanthrocapitalism? Case Western Reserve Law Review 61(3): 753.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimball, Kristi, and Malka Kopell. 2011. Letting Go. Stanford Social Innovation Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, Larry, and Carol Larson. 2015. Foundations Must Move Fast to Fight Climate Change. 20 April. Accessed September 14, 2015. https://philanthropy.com/article/Foundations-Must-Move-Fast-to/229509

  • Laurence, Steven. 2010. Climate Change: The U.S. Foundation Response. New York: Foundation Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipschutz, Ronnie, and Corinna McKendry. 2011. Social Movements and Global Civil Society. In Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, eds. John Dryzek, Richard Norgaard, and David Scholsberg, 369–383. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Losson, Christian. 2015. COP21: “L’accord doit être une prophétie autoréalisatrice”. Libération, 17 December.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGoey, Linsey. 2015. No Such Thing as a Free Gift: The Gates Foundation and the Price of Philanthropy. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minkoff, Debra, and John McCarthy. 2005. Reinvigorating the Study of Organizational Processes in Social Movements. Mobilization: An International Quarterly 10(2): 289–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, Jennifer. 2015. Setting the Bar for Success at the Paris Climate Summit. 30 September. Accessed October 8, 2015. http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/09/setting-bar-success-paris-climate-summit

  • Morvaridi, Behrooz. 2015. Introduction. In New Philanthropy and Social Justice: Debating the Conceptual and Policy Discourse, ed. Behrooz Morvaridi, 1–16. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Newell, Peter. 2005. Climate for Change? Civil Society and the Politics of Global Warming. In Global Civil Society 2005/6, eds. Helmut K. Anheier, Mary Kaldor, and Marlies Glasius, 90–119. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberthür, Sebastian, Antonio G.M. La Vina, and Jennifer Morgan. 2015. Getting Specific on the 2015 Climate Change Agreement: Suggestions for the Legal Text with an Explanatory Memorandum. Working Paper. Washington, DC: Agreement for Climate Action 2015 (ACT2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrander, Susan A., and Paul G. Schervish. 1990. Giving and Getting: Philanthropy as a Social Relation. In Critical Issues in American Philanthropy: Strengthening Theory and Practice, ed. Jon Van Til, 67–98. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plehwe, Dieter. 2014. Think Tank Networks and the Knowledge-Interest Nexus: The Case of Climate Change. Critical Policy Studies 18(1): 101–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • RFI. 2015. Hollande’s ‘Historic’ Climate Deal is Hogwash, NGOs. 12 December. Accessed January 7, 2016. http://en.rfi.fr/general/20151212-hollandes-historic-climate-deal-hogwash-slam-ngos

  • Roelofs, Joan. 2003. Foundations and Public Policy. Albany: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007. Foundations and Collaboration. Critical Sociology (no. 33): 479–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, David. 2014. Exposed: How a Shadowy Network Funded by Foreign Millions Is Making Our Household Energy Bills Soar—For a Low-Carbon Britain. The Daily Mail, 25 October.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC. 2015. Press Release—Historic Paris Agreement on Climate Change: 195 Nations Set Path to Keep Temperature Rise Well Below 2 Degrees. 12 December. http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/finale-cop21/

  • Voorhaar, Ria. 2015. Civil Society Responds as Final Paris Climate Agreement Released. 12 December. Accessed February 5, 2016. http://www.climatenetwork.org/press-release/civil-society-responds-final-paris-climate-agreement-released

  • White, Curtis. 2012. The Philanthropic Complex. Jacobin (6).

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Philanthropy in the End Times: The State of Giving at the Impossible Intersection of Capitalism, Morality, and the Natural World. Lapham’s Quarterly 8(3): 210.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ULIP and CNRS-LADYSS, Paris, France

    Edouard Morena

Authors
  1. Edouard Morena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Morena, E. (2016). Introduction. In: The Price of Climate Action. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42484-2_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42484-2_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-42483-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-42484-2

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation