skippy’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  environmental funders

  Ken Ward makes some good points on the lack of strategic funding by environmental foundations.  But his gross errors in dollar amounts given by "just 25 of the most activist-oriented environmental foundations", which Mr. Ward says is "$850 million annually" not only undermines his case, it pretty much defangs his diatribe.  

  I don't know where he gets his numbers (interesting omission of footnote on this), but an analysis fo the 2003 annual reports of the 10 largest environmental grantmaking foundations shows around $200M given to groups working in the US.  The number is larger (but not a by a huge amount)  if you include grants to international work (amazonia and africa, especially), but to include these grants is a false comparison to foundations funding right-wing advocacy to gain power in the U.S.  

  In addition, his embarrassingly sloppy "quick glance at current funding guidelines and the latest list of grants by the key players" to draw any conclusion about strategic foundation directions in 2005 is simply laughable.  If this shallow analysis is how he approaches fundraising, its no wonder he's having a hard time convincing foundations to give him money.

  This is all too bad, because I believe there is enormous room for improvement in all aspects of environmental work.  But nothing's going to change until we have an open, honest, and sober discussion of what needs to be done.  Dirty bombthrowing with specious arguments and data does nothing but delay this from becoming reality.  

  An interesting side note:  some on the anti-environment right think we've got it together, and are begging their cohorts to be more collaborative and hence effective -- like environmental and animal rights groups.  Check it out:  http://www.sierratimes.com/05/03/16/24_210_137_23_68687.htmOn Response to "Death": Part IV posted 4 years, 8 months ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  environmental funders

  Ken Ward makes some good points on the lack of strategic funding by environmental foundations.  But his gross errors in dollar amounts given by "just 25 of the most activist-oriented environmental foundations", which Mr. Ward says is "$850 million annually" not only undermines his case, it pretty much defangs his diatribe.  

  I don't know where he gets his numbers (interesting omission of footnote on this), but an analysis fo the 2003 annual reports of the 10 largest environmental grantmaking foundations shows around $200M given to groups working in the US.  The number is larger (but not a by a huge amount)  if you include grants to international work (amazonia and africa, especially), but to include these grants is a false comparison to foundations funding right-wing advocacy to gain power in the U.S.  

  In addition, his embarrassingly sloppy "quick glance at current funding guidelines and the latest list of grants by the key players" to draw any conclusion about strategic foundation directions in 2005 is simply laughable.  If this shallow analysis is how he approaches fundraising, its no wonder he's having a hard time convincing foundations to give him money.

  This is all too bad, because I believe there is enormous room for improvement in all aspects of environmental work.  But nothing's going to change until we have an open, honest, and sober discussion of what needs to be done.  Dirty bombthrowing with specious arguments and data does nothing but delay this from becoming reality.  

  An interesting side note:  some on the anti-environment right think we've got it together, and are begging their cohorts to be more collaborative and hence effective -- like environmental and animal rights groups.  Check it out:  http://www.sierratimes.com/05/03/16/24_210_137_23_68687.htmOn Environmental funders share blame for movement's weak pulse posted 4 years, 8 months ago 3 Responses