• Edouard Morena


Learning the lessons from Copenhagen, IPPI signals large climate funders’ acknowledgment of the need to adopt a more holistic approach to the international climate debate. Yet, while recognizing the importance and complexity of climate politics, IPPI continued, by and large, to favour a technocratic approach. In other words, it was about leveraging politics—right and left—for the purposes of a pre-determined objective rather than engaging in politics—by overtly taking position in the debate. Climate change was framed as an apolitical, solvable problem. Yet, while presenting itself as non-political, IPPI’s approach masks a distinctly political agenda. Moreover, IPPI’s domineering position in the climate funders’ landscape contributed to align the climate community with the dominant discourse in the negotiations—especially given the relative absence of progressive funders.


Progressive funders Climate philanthropy Liberal environmentalism Climate politics COP21 


  1. Anderson, Kevin. 2015. Talks in the City of Light Generate More Heat. Nature 528(December): 437.Google Scholar
  2. Bartosiewicz, Petra, and Marissa Miley. 2013. The Too Polite Revolution: Why the Recent Campaign to Pass Comprehensive Climate Legislation in the United States Failed.Google Scholar
  3. Bernstein, Steven.2002. Liberal Environmentalism and Global Environmental Governance. Global Environmental Politics 2(3): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernstein, Steven, and Benjamin Cashore.2001. Globalization, Internationalization and Liberal Environmentalism: Exploring Non-domestic Sources of Influence on Canadian Environmental Policy. In Canadian Environmental Policy: Ecosystems, Politics and Process, eds. Debora L. Van Nijnatten and Robert Boardman, 212–230. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Berresford, Susan. 2009. The Art of Grantmaking. Stanford Social Innovation Review 17–19.Google Scholar
  6. Bullard, Nicola, and Gopal Dayaneni. 2009. Why Do We Need a Global Climate Justice Movement? 16 September. Accessed February 5, 2016.
  7. Callahan, David. 2014. Why Won’t Foundations Like Hewlett Just Stand Up and Fight for Their Values? 14 July. Accessed March 9, 2016.
  8. Climate Briefing Service. 2015. CBS Briefing: Understanding Who Could Undermine a Strong Agreement in Paris. 4 November.Google Scholar
  9. Dorfman, Aaron. 2008. Strategic Philanthropy. 19 November. Accessed January 18, 2016.
  10. ECF.2011. Vision 2020: A Synthesis Document on the Strategic Input of the ECF to the V2020 Process. The Hague: European Climate Foundation.Google Scholar
  11. ———.2016. The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: A Perspective on the Implications for the Role of Philanthropy. The Hague: European Climate Foundation.Google Scholar
  12. Hansen, Sarah.2012. Cultivating the Grassroots: A Winning Approach for Environment and Climate Funders. Washington, DC: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).Google Scholar
  13. Jenkins, J. Craig.2011. Social Movement Philanthropy and the Growth of Nonprofit Political Advocacy: Scope, Legitimacy, and Impact. In Exploring Organizations and Advocacy: Strategies and Finances, eds. Elizabeth J. Reid and Maria D. Montilla, 51–66. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  14. Preston, Caroline. 2012. Nonprofits Offer Their Vision for New Hewlett President. 2 January. Accessed February 8, 2016.
  15. Smith, James. 1993. The Idea Brokers: Think Tanks and the Rise of the New Policy Elite. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations