Foundations in Copenhagen

  • Edouard Morena


The chapter looks at how the strategic approach presented in Chap.  3 shaped foundations’ involvement in the international climate debate leading up to and during the Copenhagen climate summit in December 2009 (COP15). In particular, it analyses two distinct initiatives whose main funders were closely associated with the Design to Win strategy and ClimateWorks Foundation Network: the Global Call for Climate Action (GCCA) and Project Catalyst.


Project Catalyst GCCA ClimateWorks Foundation COP15 Climate philanthropy 


  1. 1Sky. 2009. Annual Report 2007–2008 (Year 1). Takoma Park, MD: 1Sky.Google Scholar
  2. Aykut, Stefan, and Amy Dahan. 2015. Gouverner le Climat? 20 ans de négociations internationales. Paris: Presses de Science Po.Google Scholar
  3. Bartosiewicz, Petra, and Marissa Miley. 2013. The Too Polite Revolution: Why the Recent Campaign to Pass Comprehensive Climate Legislation in the United States Failed in SSRN Electronic Journal. January.
  4. ClimateWorks Foundation. 2009a. Approach. January 2009. Accessed May 3, 2016.
  5. ———. 2009b. The Business Case for a Strong Global Deal. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Climate Council.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 2010a. 2009 Annual Report: An Expert Network. ClimateWorks. October 2010. Accessed May 2, 2016.
  7. ———. 2010b. Form 990: Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax (for 2009). Tax Exempt Form.Google Scholar
  8. Cox, Brendan. 2011. Campaigning for International Justice: Learning Lessons (1991–2011); Where Next? (2011–2015).Google Scholar
  9. Cox, Sadie, and Ron Benioff. 2011. International Assistance for Low-Emissions Development Planning: Coordinated Low Emissions Assistance Network (CLEAN) Inventory of Activities and Tools—Preliminary Trends. US Department of Energy. Oak Ridge, TN: NREL.Google Scholar
  10. EGA. 2009. Summary of Tracking the Field, Volume 2: A Closer Look at Environmental Grantmaking. New York: Environmental Grantmakers Association.Google Scholar
  11. ———. 2011. A Summary from the Environmental Grantmakers Association’s: Tracking the Field, Volume 3: Exploring Environmental Grantmaking. New York: Environmental Grantmakers Association.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 2015. A Summary from the EGA’s Tracking the Field: Volume 5. Washington, DC: Environmental Grantmakers Association (EGA).Google Scholar
  13. Ekins, Paul, Fabian Kesicki, and Andrew Z.P. Smith. 2011. Marginal Abatement Cost Curves: A Call for Caution. London: UCL Energy Institute, University College London.Google Scholar
  14. Falkner, Robert, Hannes Stephan, and John Vogler. 2010. International Climate Policy after Copenhagen: Towards a ‘Building Blocks’ Approach. Global Policy 1(3): 252–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. GCCA. 2009. US Climate Action Network. Accessed May 2, 2016.
  16. ———. 2010. Annual Report 2009. Global Call for Climate Action. 8 June. Accessed May 2, 2016.
  17. GLCA. 2007, September. Framework for a Post-2012 Agreement on Climate Change. Club de Madrid. Accessed May 2, 2016.
  18. Greenpeace International. 2011. Bad Influence: How McKinsey-Inspired Plans Lead to Rainforest Destruction. Amsterdam: Greenpeace International.Google Scholar
  19. Hewlett Foundation. 2009. What’s Next in the Battle Against Climate Change. 1 July. Accessed May 5, 2016.
  20. Hoffman, Matthew J. 2011. Climate Governance at the Crossroads: Experimenting with a Global Response after Kyoto. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hughes, Róisín. 2008. Climate Philanthropy in Europe: Raising the Bar. Effect 42–43.Google Scholar
  22. Kylander, Nathalie, and Christopher Stone. 2011. The Role of Brand in the Nonprofit Sector. The Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  23. Meilstrup, Per. 2010. The Runaway Summit: The Background Story of the Danish Presidency of COP15, the UN Climate Change Conference. Danish Foreign Policy Yearbook 2010, 113–135.Google Scholar
  24. OAK Foundation. 2011. 2010 Annual Report. Annual Report. OAK Foundation.Google Scholar
  25. ———. 2009b. Project Catalyst Symposium. Agenda. San Francisco: ClimateWorks Foundation.Google Scholar
  26. ———. 2009c. Taking Stock: The Emissions Levels Implied by the Current Proposals for Copenhagen. Briefing Paper.Google Scholar
  27. ———. 2009d. Towards a Global Climate Agreement. Synthesis Briefing Paper.Google Scholar
  28. Rainforest Foundation UK. 2010. McREDD: How McKinsey ‘Const-Curves’ are Distorting REDD. Rainforest Foundation UK. November 2010. Accessed February 5, 2016.
  29. Rosenthal, Elisabeth. 2007. U.N. Report Describes Risks of Inaction on Climate Change. The New York Times, 17 November.Google Scholar
  30. UNFCCC. 2010. Press Statements. UNFCCC. 20 January. Accessed May 3, 2016.
  31. UN Foundation and Center for American Progress. 2009. Meeting the Climate Challenge: Core Elements of an Effective Response to Climate Change. UN Foundation. October 2009. Accessed May 2, 2016.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edouard Morena
    • 1
  1. 1.ULIP and CNRS-LADYSSParisFrance

Personalised recommendations