This Political Movement Spends Billions—And Keeps Losing
The climate movement has important goals, but it is significantly more partisan than the society it serves.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We haven’t written about climate change at The Next Move and it’s certainly not the main focus for a publication covering the fight for democracy. What is relevant is the lesson that the pro-democracy camp can draw from the battle over the environment. In this piece, two climate experts, Isabela Valencia and Mimi Martinez, offer a perspective that should be shared in any movement that wants to win. Read on and let us know what you think!
Isabela Valencia is a recent masters graduate of the Yale School of the Environment, where she studied climate policy, finance, and philanthropy. She served as a Bekenstein Climate Fellow at The Alliance for Climate Transition.
Mimi Martinez is a recent masters graduate of the Yale School of the Environment, where she focused on climate policy and the interdisciplinary relationship between business and the environment. Mimi has worked on renewable energy policy, community engagement initiatives, and conservation strategies, including through Environment Texas, The Forests Dialogue, and the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
The climate movement should be more influential, but it isn’t. By virtually any measure of money spent versus progress made, the climate movement is among the least efficient political forces in modern American history. It’s a case study in how not to make your case—on any issue.
Climate change is among the most pressing public policy issues. Global warming trends are accelerating, with new temperature records set regularly. Extreme weather, from floods in Texas to fires in California, makes no distinction between red and blue America.
Each year, the environmental movement spends approximately $12.5 billion on climate-related causes and advocacy, according to data from the ClimateWorks Foundation. Yet despite this staggering sum, overall emissions remain stubbornly high, meaningful US federal policy breakthroughs are rare, brittle, and inadequate, and bipartisan political momentum is limited and fleeting.
Compare this with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which wields significant influence in Washington DC and is widely regarded as one of the most effective advocacy organizations in the United States. AIPAC’s flagship conference, when held, is the single-largest gathering of members of Congress other than… Congress itself. And even in the face of intense controversy, the organization has helped deliver sustained and overwhelming bipartisan support for its legislative priorities. Meanwhile, AIPAC’s combined operations–spanning 501c3, 501c4, and political spending–amount to just $250 million annually.
Or consider the National Rifle Association (NRA), which, at its peak, transformed American politics with a budget that never came close to what climate philanthropists spend in a single year. Its combined philanthropic and political spending peaked around $500 million a year, 25 times less than annual climate spending.
Even the fossil fuel lobby, often viewed as an omnipotent political juggernaut, spends roughly $225 million a year on lobbying and political influence, according to a recent analysis by Climate Power. That figure surely understates the true total, given the flow of dark money through trade associations and allied groups. But even if actual spending is many times higher, that would still be a small fraction of the environmental movement’s annual budget. Yet the fossil fuel lobby continues to win far more policy battles than it loses.
Put aside what you think of these groups and the positions they support. Acknowledging that these comparisons are, of course, imperfect, the core point stands: climate organizations spend much more than other advocacy efforts, and have much less to show for it.
So why is the climate movement so uniquely inefficient?
Three reasons stand out.
More from The Next Move
First, an ideological blind spot has led to a near-total failure to invest in right-of-center organizing. America is a two-party country. Republicans have controlled at least one chamber of Congress 75% of the time since 1990. And yet climate philanthropy treats right-of-center outreach as optional, not essential. Less than 1% of climate giving supports work aimed at engaging conservatives or center-right constituencies. That’s not just a missed opportunity; it is strategic malpractice. No movement succeeds long-term by writing off half the electorate.
Second, climate advocates keep bringing three-point plans to a gunfight. The movement excels at generating detailed policy reports, talking point memos, and academic papers. But it struggles with power building. That’s a problem. Policy doesn’t get passed because it’s smart. It gets passed because people are organized, votes are whipped, narratives are shaped, and pressure is applied. The NRA didn’t win by being right. It won by being relentless. The environmental movement has made some progress on this front in recent years, but it still has a long way to go. Until climate advocates learn to play political hardball at scale (including by directing more dollars to direct advocacy and political spending), they’ll keep getting outmaneuvered.
Third, the climate movement has become bogged down in internal fights and culture wars. Rather than focusing on building broad-based coalitions that can win, too much energy goes into purity tests, in-group signaling, and internal debates that leave little room for outsiders, particularly those with moderate or conservative views. That might feel good in the short term, but it is political self-sabotage over the long haul. The result is an environmental movement that is significantly more partisan than the society it serves.
For climate funders, this is a moment of reckoning. And for any other political cause looking at this situation from the outside, this should be a lesson. Despite billions spent, the return on investment for climate philanthropy is abysmal compared to peer movements. But that can change. By redirecting even a modest share of annual spending toward deeper political power-building and true bipartisan engagement, donors could unlock exponentially greater impact. The money is already being spent. It’s the strategy that needs upgrading.
A successful movement must be capable of reaching across political divides, building durable coalitions, and fighting to win. That means funding not only research and solutions, but also the efforts of storytellers, organizers, bridge-builders, lobbyists, campaigners, and advocates across the political spectrum.
If the climate movement musters the clarity to change course, it can be a model for other causes that want to be more savvy. If it continues down its current path, it will wind up being a cautionary tale about squandered opportunity. The movement has the resources. Now it needs the resolve to spend them where they’ll matter most.
More from The Next Move
Debate: Banning Democracy to Save Democracy?
Two perspectives: Banning an extremist party like Germany’s AfD could make the far-right faction a martyr. Or it could be the proactive defense required to protect democracy from those who abuse it.
The New York Times Runs Shameless Propaganda on Russia and Ukraine
The Times criticizes Ukraine’s legitimate self-defense against Russia while Vladimir Putin’s troops escort their reporter.
 | A guest post by
|
 | A guest post by
|
Socialism really doesn’t appeal to conservatives. Perhaps that’s why they make no attempt to persuade outside their purity bubble.
And with leading figures like Saint Greta and lying criminals like Michael Mann they deserve contempt, not the fawning adulation of a morally bankrupt media.