A Transcendental Meditation

When Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus delivered the talk that has everyone talking, they chose an influential audience: environmental grantmakers. Although the now (in)famous pair focused on mainstream advocacy organizations in their discussion of the death of environmentalism, others have contended that new thinking by the folks who write the checks is key to revitalizing the movement. We've invited four representatives from foundations around the U.S. to discuss the issue. Most recent post of the day.

From: Hooper Brooks
To: Stuart Clarke, Enrique Salmón, Rhea Suh
Subject: A new ideology
Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:12 p.m. PST

Stuart makes a good point when he says that "ideological battles aren't going to go away" -- that it will be difficult to sit these battles out in order for the frame of environmentalism to become increasingly inclusive. Yet Enrique makes a good point when he suggests, if I understand it correctly, that we have to transcend ideology if we are going to find new allies in the "middle ground" and from "all segments of society." The challenge is how to bring the two together (especially in the face of daily ideological onslaughts that are clearly anti-environmental).

That will probably be a function of time. As broader, wider-ranging coalitions and collaborations engage, as environmental issues get reframed, there is sure to be a recognition of shared values (not all the values of a traditional environmentalist, perhaps, but I'm more optimistic than Stuart on this score). From that may flow a new ideology -- one that has more of a mainstream image. For example, as good jobs, economic vitality, or improved personal health begin to be more clearly synonymous with a good environment, it will be hard to peel people away from supporting better environmental stewardship.

---

From: Rhea Suh
To: Hooper Brooks, Stuart Clarke, Enrique Salmón
Subject: Shifting the conversation
Tuesday, March 29, 2005 2:39 p.m. PST

I share Stuart's uneasiness around the implications of ideologically transcendent environmentalism. I'm not sure any of us know with any certainty where these conversations and relationships may take us. However, I suppose I am open to exploring these new, unknown frontiers. If we are truly interested in breaking out of our safety zone and finding common cause with different allies, we must be open to what this can or should mean.

For example, there are enormous efforts being made to attract the attention of religious communities on a variety of environmental issues, including climate change and endangered species. But too often, we've approached this as "renting a congregation." Go out, get some religious people, sign them on to our letters! I fear it is just this type of superficial organizing that has led to the characterizations of our community as arrogant elitists. What does environmentalism mean for different faiths, and how can we best support them? As Paul Gorman, the head of the National Religious Partnership for the Environment, likes to say, "The question should go two ways; it isn't just what the environmental community can do for the religious communities, but what religious communities can do for the environmental community." If the point of building relationships with the religious community is a hope that we can influence them around our issues, can we not expect that they might influence us as well?

I'm not calling for a wholesale shift in values or in ideology. Rather, I think we need to be genuinely open to having conversations with different constituencies in an honest and equitable manner. While we may not need or want to be aligned with each other on many things, we shouldn't pass up the areas where there may be opportunities out of fear that we are losing touch with our ideological underpinnings. After all, should ideologies be static? Can't and don't they evolve and adapt to ever-changing circumstances?

I'm really interested in your comments on the above, but I'd also like to shift the conversation to foundations. I think there is a lot of interest in trying to get some insight into how foundations work and what we perceive our role to be in the movement. I think that the environmental funding community is an obviously important part of the movement. We not only support the field, but we also play a role in shaping the strategies and activities of environmental organizations. Just as there is a spectrum of approaches to environmental preservation and policy in the field, there is diversity among foundations. As my old boss Michael Fischer liked to say, "You've seen one foundation, you've seen one foundation."

I think that we can simultaneously be facilitators of change (e.g., providing general support grants to organizations) and engineers of change (e.g., developing a specific initiative around a particular policy goal). I have seen and done both, and believe that both strategies have their merits. However, I do recognize that the latter -- engineering a particular strategy or initiative with a particular goal in mind -- is much more controversial. The tension may really be about who the decision-maker is; is it the grantee or grantor? Are we facilitators of environmental change or engineers of it? Are we to blame for the failings of the field? How do we view our role and our responsibilities?

---

From: Stuart Clarke
To: Hooper Brooks, Enrique Salmón, Rhea Suh
Subject: Re: Shifting the conversation
Tuesday, March 29, 2005 3:40 p.m. PST

Rhea, I'd like to take one last (I promise!) swing at the ideology question before moving on to the important issues that you raise regarding the specific role of foundations in the environmental movement. Two quick points: first, the issue that I am concerned about has less to do with "losing touch with our ideological underpinnings" and more to do with the question of whether it is either necessary or desirable for environmentalism to even have clear ideological underpinnings. When I use the term "ideologically transcendent" environmentalism, I am referring to an environmentalism that does not see value in clear ideological underpinnings. Second, while developing divergent alliances with folks who do not share our ideological underpinnings can certainly be important, sometimes I wish we were more focused on and capable of developing convergent alliances with folks who do share our ideological underpinnings (!).

With respect to your comments about the roles and responsibilities of funders, my view is that if funders are clear about their intentions and clearly communicate those intentions, then they can contribute value in all sorts of different ways. I recognize that some folks get bent out of shape when they think that foundations are trying to "engineer" change, but I think foundations have just as much right to operate in that space as anyone else, so long as they aren't pretending to be doing something else. (I've just finished a nine-hour board meeting, so I am going to give myself permission to sign off on that considerably less-than-profound note and try to come back tomorrow with renewed vigor.)

---

From: Enrique Salmón
To: Hooper Brooks, Stuart Clarke, Rhea Suh
Subject: Re: Shifting the conversation
Tuesday, March 29, 2005 4:44 p.m. PST

Stuart, Rhea, and Hooper,

Today's conversation has been an interesting one. I feel aligned to what everyone is adding. I especially agree with Rhea's comment that suggests that ideologies should be allowed to be dynamic and "ever-changing" to adapt to circumstances. Environmentalism needs to be adaptive, or suffer the fate of past movements that fizzled out over time and became subjects in history books. And indeed, I think the environmental movement has adapted to changing political, social, and economic shifts. " The Death of Environmentalism" can be perceived as a bell-tone that more change is needed.

Speaking of which, foundations that support environmental projects have also been agents of, and affected by, change. We might not be having this conversation if a program officer at a foundation had not supported efforts by Shellenberger and Nordhaus to write and disseminate their essay. As funders, we reflect the various moods and facets of environmentalism -- even those like me, who have difficulty placing ourselves within the category of environmentalism. I feel it is our responsibility to continue to push the field's envelope, and even sometimes take chances with some grants in order to see what the possibilities are when it comes to positive change. At the same time, we can't neglect the core values and the purveyors of those values: the numerous hardworking NGOs that have brought the environmental movement to its current state. This raises an important question: should funders continue to support the NGOs that are so entrenched that change is virtually impossible, and how do we identify the current and new NGOs that could become tomorrow's environmental leaders?

- - - - - - - - - -

Hooper Brooks is the program director for the environment at the Surdna Foundation in New York City, a family foundation with assets over $700 million and an 80-year history. The foundation's environment program makes more than $7 million in grants annually to organizations working on transportation, energy, biological diversity, and urban/suburban land-use issues throughout the U.S.

Stuart Clarke is the executive director of the Town Creek Foundation in Easton, Md. For nearly 25 years, Town Creek has supported public education, citizen action, and advocacy to achieve a healthy environment, an informed society, and a peaceful world.

Enrique Salmón, Ph.D., is a program officer for The Christensen Fund, an independent private foundation that supports bio-cultural projects worldwide. His primary funding region is the greater Southwest of the United States and northwest Mexico. He is a Tarahumara Indian.

Rhea Suh is a program officer with the environment program at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, where she manages the Western grants portfolio. She currently serves on the Environmental Grantmakers Association board, and has been its chair and vice chair.