wp-graphql
domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init
action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home4/carbonsw/public_html/carbonswitchcms/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114wp-simple-firewall
domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init
action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home4/carbonsw/public_html/carbonswitchcms/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114If you are a journalist and want to interview someone at Carbon Switch about this report, please email michael@carbonswitch.co.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We analyzed data from a number of sources \u2014 including IRS tax returns, ProPublica’s non-profit API, and foundation grant data \u2014 in order to understand what types of organizations donors funded in 2020. Here\u2019s what we discovered: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Carbon Switch<\/a>\u00a0produces research and guides that help people and communities live more sustainably. We’ve written guides on everything from mini-splits<\/a>, to the most energy efficient water heater<\/a>, to induction stoves<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But we believe that only policy and systemic change will solve our current environmental crisis. Without good policies, climate solutions like\u00a0heat pumps<\/a> will remain too expensive and out of reach for most Americans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That\u2019s why we produce rigorously researched reports like this one that encourage people to look beyond their individual carbon footprint. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In recent years more people<\/a> in the United States have become aware of the problem of climate change. For voters it is an increasingly important issue<\/a>. One reason for this may be that Americans are already seeing the cost of climate change. In 2020 there were a record 22 billion-dollar weather and climate disasters that cost the country $95 billion, according to NOAA<\/a>. There\u2019s also a growing consensus that climate change will negatively impact everything from human health<\/a> to poverty<\/a> and exacerbate existing inequalities and injustices. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Yet despite these facts, climate mitigation remains one of the least funded causes in philanthropy and charity. After analyzing data from a number of sources \u2014 including IRS tax returns, ProPublica’s non-profit API, and foundation grant data \u2014 we discovered that only $8 billion (less than 2% of all charitable giving and philanthropy) went to environmental organizations in 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Previous analyses of charitable giving have primarily used the IRS\u2019 major NTEE groups<\/a> to understand where charitable dollars go each year. But there are a few problems with using this taxonomy system. First, the NTEE major group that includes environmental organizations also includes organizations focused on animals (e.g. animal shelters). Second, the \u201cEnvironment\u201d subcategory doesn\u2019t describe what type of environmental work an organization does. In fact, some of the largest nonprofits in this category are botanical gardens in major US cities and land trusts. This makes it difficult to estimate how much money goes to organizations working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Using ProPublica\u2019s nonprofit API<\/a>, we analyzed tax returns from 65,181 environmental nonprofits to understand what types of organizations donors funded in 2020. <\/p>\n\n\n\n We discovered that the vast majority of organizations in the IRS\u2019 Environment subcategory were land trusts and conservation nonprofits. Many of these organizations do essential work. Conservation can not only preserve biodiversity, but it can also protect forests and wetlands that sequester carbon. However, as ProPublica reported in 2017<\/a>, land trusts often act as tax shelters. According to the Brookings Institute<\/a> this results in more than $1 billion per year in tax deductions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to isolate the organizations that aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we searched IRS tax records for nonprofits in relevant subcategories like \u201cC35 – Energy Resources Conservation & Development\u201d and \u201cC20 – Pollution Abatement & Control.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n From this analysis we discovered that these organizations received about $2 billion in 2020 (0.4% of all giving).<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to analyzing IRS tax records, we analyzed foundation grant data in order to understand where some of the largest donors direct their money. We discovered that the regions and sectors that emit the most greenhouse gases receive very little philanthropic support. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For example organizations working to reduce emissions in Asia received $160 million in 2020, which represented 12% of philanthropic funding, despite the fact that the region is responsible for 53% of global emissions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n India, the third largest emitting country, is responsible for roughly 7% of global emissions. Yet only $33 million (2.5%) went to organizations working to decarbonize the country in 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\nIntroduction<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
2020 Share of Contributions by Type of Organization<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Climate mitigation nonprofits receive only 0.4% of charitable dollars<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The largest emitting regions and sectors get a small fraction of philanthropic support<\/h3>\n\n\n\n