Some of the world's wealthiest individuals are dedicating significant portions of their fortunes to environmental causes, yet their business dealings often involve industries that experts identify as major contributors to environmental degradation. This creates a complex dynamic, where philanthropy aims to solve problems potentially exacerbated by the very sources of that wealth.
Tom Kaplan, a billionaire investor and philanthropist who co-founded Panthera, an organization dedicated to conserving wild cats, recently auctioned a Rembrandt drawing for nearly $18 million. The proceeds were designated for Panthera. Kaplan, who made his fortune through natural resource exploration, mining, and investment, remains active in the metals mining sector. He is the founder and chair of The Electrum Group and chairs NovaGold Resources, which is developing what is expected to be the largest single gold mine in the U.S. in Alaska.
When asked if his environmental philanthropy served as a counterweight to the impact of his industry, Kaplan stated that people do not typically ask him such questions. He suggested that mining's environmental footprint is minimal compared to agriculture and climate change, and asserted that he would always choose Panthera over his business interests. He also disputed the notion of a public tension between mining and wildlife conservation, calling it a "hack journalist thing to say."
However, mining experts and conservation organizations dispute Kaplan's claims. Four mining experts interviewed stated that mining metals can destroy habitats, contaminate environments with chemicals, and contribute to deforestation, which in turn impacts wild animals, including big cats. Panthera itself lists mining as a threat to at least two wild feline species, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) identifies "mining and quarrying" as a threat to 19 cat species globally.
Kaplan declined to comment further when presented with a detailed list of reporting on the matter.
This situation highlights a broader issue in environmental philanthropy. According to a UN report, for every dollar spent to protect nature, more than $30 goes toward destroying it, largely through industries like energy, agriculture, and mining. Philanthropic contributions, while significant, are often insufficient to counteract the scale of environmental harm perpetuated by these industries. Experts note that many wealthy individuals involved in environmental giving are also leaders in sectors causing ecological damage, a contradiction they may not acknowledge.
Other prominent figures face similar scrutiny. Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, has committed $10 billion to his Bezos Earth Fund for climate change and nature protection, despite his company's significant carbon and plastic pollution. The owners of the shipping company MSC use philanthropy to support coral reef restoration, while their company is a major source of carbon emissions, a leading threat to reefs. Kjell Inge Røkke, involved in oil and gas exploration through Aker ASA, has donated to ocean plastic cleanup efforts, despite plastic being derived from oil.
Philanthropy experts suggest that wealthy individuals can become insulated from uncomfortable contradictions, allowing them to "ignore reality." This detachment can lead to a "feel-good eco-savior complex" while diverting attention from the larger environmental problems their businesses perpetuate. Addressing issues like rising temperatures and extinction rates requires fundamental reforms in industries such as agriculture, energy, and mining, which is difficult if industry leaders do not acknowledge their own role.
"The philanthropy world is quite keen to put so much weight on what they’re giving, but they minimize what they’re taking," said Jessie Bluedorn, a philanthropist and environmental organizer, referring to the environmental impact of philanthropists' business activities. She advocates for greater honesty about the full balance sheet of societal contributions.
While billionaires are not obligated to engage in philanthropy, and their charitable donations can be substantial, the scale of environmental destruction often dwarfs these contributions. For example, in 2023, less than 2 percent of global philanthropy, an estimated $15.8 billion, was directed toward climate change mitigation, while trillions were spent on activities that harm the environment.
Some foundations and individuals are beginning to address the source of their wealth. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Rockefeller Foundation have divested their endowments from fossil fuels, acknowledging the legacy of their fortune's origins in the oil industry. Major foundations have also moved to align their investments with climate justice initiatives, particularly after 2020 protests highlighted racial injustice and the roots of wealth. Living billionaires like Tom Steyer have shifted from fossil fuel investments to funding climate solutions, and Nicky Oppenheimer sold his stake in De Beers to invest in wildlife conservation.
However, the fundamental issue remains: the economic system, supported by these industries, continues to cause significant environmental damage. Redirecting financial flows from harmful activities to sustainable ones is crucial. As Glen Galaich, CEO of the Stupski Foundation, noted, foundations distribute $100 billion annually, a figure dwarfed by the multitrillion-dollar environmental problems.
Ultimately, for industries to cease creating environmental problems, their leaders, even those passionate about conservation, must first acknowledge the existence and impact of those problems. The scale of damage caused by for-profit industries often overshadows the good done through charitable giving, making systemic change within those industries paramount.