As federal funding for climate initiatives faces steep cuts, nonprofits and philanthropic organizations are stepping into the breach, calling out the urgent need for private support to address what they see as an existential crisis.

The issue took center stage Wednesday in Orlando, at the Climate Correction Conference. With federal grants paused or canceled due to recent executive orders and legal challenges, nonprofits grapple with uncertainty, making private philanthropy more critical than ever.

Dawn Shirreffs, Florida director of the Environmental Defense Fund, explained the urgency.

"We don't have time," Shirreffs emphasized. "In fact, one of the things Environmental Defense Fund is known for is we don't have an endowment, because we don't feel we have the time to wait in the battle on climate change to have money sitting in a bank. We need to get our greenhouse gas emissions down now, so that we have a planet to fight for."

Shirreffs argued it is time to rethink philanthropic giving. She stressed there is a critical need for strategic, multiyear funding rather than one-time donations to sustain climate efforts.

David S. Vogel, cofounder, trustee and chief scientist for the VoLo Foundation, which is hosting the conference, said as a data-driven funder, he prioritizes long-term investments in climate solutions, from sustainable farming to clean energy innovation. He echoed the call for proactive philanthropy in light of federal funding cuts.

"Cuts all across the board -- not just climate science, cancer research -- again, the government falling short on thinking proactively. It's very reactive," Vogel contended. "As a result, maybe the government will end up having to pay more in climate damages. But it's more important than ever for private funding to step in and fund at least the right areas of research."

Yoca Arditti-Rocha, executive director of the CLEO Institute, highlighted the disproportionate impact of climate change on Florida, from rising sea levels and stronger hurricanes to an insurance crisis, all while receiving minimal funding for solutions.

"It's important to understand that only 2% of global philanthropy dollars go to climate solutions," Arditti-Rocha pointed out. "We cannot solve this issue with just 2%. We must close that funding gap."

The panelists agreed the climate crisis is a threat multiplier, exacerbating issues like poverty, public health and housing. They said philanthropy must step up to fill the void being left by government cuts.

Results of a new study from Michigan State University suggest farmers no longer have to choose between growing crops and harnessing solar power. They can do both on the same land.

The 25-year study of California farmland found farmers who added solar panels, a practice known as agrivoltaics, made more money per acre than those who did not. The research shows crops and solar work together, especially when panels are placed on low-yield acres, or spots not growing as much food due to poor soil or too much shade.

The research indicates the approach helps farmers boost income without reducing food production.

Jake Stid, a graduate student at Michigan State and lead author of the study, said farmers can also benefit through a system called Net Energy Metering.

"A return structure where farmers can directly in many cases, interconnect so they can use the electricity to offset their own needs, as well as sell excess generation, excess electricity back to the utility for a discounted rate," Stid outlined.

Researchers estimate California land now used for solar panels could have fed 86,000 people had it stayed in crops. The study looked at the trade-off between farming and solar energy, while critics warned it could worsen food security by reducing farmland.

Stid highlighted his team chose California's Central Valley as the focus of the research due to its significant contribution to both national and global food production, particularly for a variety of orchard crops.

"It's a really, really agriculturally valuable state and it also happens to be a pretty water-stressed state," Stid pointed out. "Specifically, the Central Valley has been experiencing pretty significant drought, as well as over allocation of water resources."

Some farmers expressed concern about solar panels shading crops, affecting growth and reducing yields. Stid hopes to expand his research on solar arrays and food production nationwide, contributing to the ongoing debate among farmers on how to use land sustainably, without harming food production.


get more stories like this via email

Lawmakers and climate change activists are speaking out against a rumored executive action by President Donald Trump to revoke tax-exempt statuses from climate nonprofits. One rumored change includes the removal of climate change from qualifying topics for the exemption.

Last Thursday in the Oval Office, Trump hinted environmental nonprofits could have their tax-exempt statuses scrutinized by the administration. Federal law currently bars a president from directly or indirectly ordering the Internal Revenue Service to investigate specific tax-exempt organizations.

Ruth Ann Norton, president and CEO of the nonpartisan Green and Healthy Homes Initiative, said she found the rumored executive actions troubling.

"We should not be talking about removing tax-exempt status from the civic good that comes from the work of nonprofits to prevent environmental issues that impair and impact and are harmful on people's lives," Norton contended.

Climate nonprofits are not the only organizations in Trump's crosshairs. He has suggested Harvard University should lose its tax-exempt status over defying demands from the administration dealing with diversity, admissions processes and antisemitism.

Tax-exempt status allows organizations to receive tax-deductible charitable contributions and not pay federal income tax.

Joelle Novey, director of the nonprofit Interfaith Power and Light in Maryland, the District of Columbia and Northern Virginia, said the actions may target climate nonprofits first but all nonprofits are at risk.

"There is no attack on civil society groups in the United States that isn't an attack on every one of us who expresses who we are by forming, supporting, volunteering and taking action through nonprofit organizations," Novey argued.

A federal judge last week ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze billions of dollars in climate and infrastructure funds previously targeted in an executive order on Trump's first day in office.


get more stories like this via email

As of today, Earth Day, more than 50 elected officials have signed a letter urging lawmakers to make oil and gas companies bear the cost of climate change.

The California Polluters Pay Superfund, which goes before the state Senate Judiciary Committee today, would assess a fee on large oil and gas companies to pay for programs that mitigate damage from climate change.

Ahmad Zahra, a council member in Fullerton, signed onto the letter sponsored by the group Elected Officials to Protect America.

"Throughout the years, these large oil companies were really not necessarily telling the truth about air pollution," Zahra pointed out. "Just like we've seen in oil spills and ground pollution, the responsible party has to pay for it."

The Western States Petroleum Association opposes the bill, saying it would lead to higher gas prices. The bill directs the California Environmental Protection Agency to determine how much climate change has cost the state from 1990 to 2024. Federal data show California has suffered 46 natural disasters linked to climate change since 1980, each resulting in more than $1 billion in losses, with $250 billion from the Los Angeles firestorm alone.

Marisol Rubio, a council member in San Ramon, said 40% of the funds would be directed to low-income communities most affected by fossil fuel pollution.

"Those funds can then be used to better manage and correct and abate the pollution that not only already exists but that will come inevitably in the future, until we are able to be independent of fossil fuels," Rubio explained.

Advocates said right now, everyday Californians foot the bill for climate change in the form of higher taxes, insurance rates and utility bills, as well as via medical expenses for pollution-related illness.