There’s a lot of conservation work to be done: science to conduct, grasslands to restore, fisheries to reform, habitats to protect, solar farms to site responsibly, oysterbeds to repopulate, beaches to clean. And all of this activity requires money. In the end, though the Earth’s natural systems are resilient, it will be money that protects what functions so well on its own. The daunting task of raising money to address all of these challenges falls on conservation nonprofits, many of which came under scrutiny earlier this week for accepting donations from some of the very corporations causing environmental damage, such as BP. Nearly two dozen environmental groups received donations from BP in the past several years, for projects ranging from wind farm mitigation to protecting forests in Brazil. The BP website talks of contributing to the “Environment and society”, but their few million dollars in contributions compared with their $14 billion in profit (2009 numbers) says to me that there is a lot of greenwashing going on. Though BP does not feature the logo of any environmental nonprofit on their website , surely their ability to tell investors and the public that they are contributing to “Environment and society” serves a purpose towards either their profit, ability to enter communities, ability to influence policy– or all three. So, is it worth it? Is the return on investment that BP is getting from donating to conservation groups worth the conservation getting done with their money? I tend towards a more pragmatic view. If conservation groups opted to reject donations from environment-harming companies, surely the big players like Chevron, BP, and Shell would be out. But what about Nestle, whose bottled spring water brand Arrowhead draws hundreds of millions of gallons out of watersheds, and is roundly criticized for its practices? Or clothing manufacturing companies, whose production relies on extensive water use in developing countries, at times taking it away from fragile ecosystems? Or electronics and software companies, who also use a great deal of water and at times precious minerals mined (and disposed of) at a great human and environmental cost? There isn’t a clear line. It seems that to achieve total transparancy with donations, groups would have to reject all corporate donations. Rarely are our consumer products derived without some impact. And this assumes that conservation groups could fill their funding needs in other ways. Of this I am skeptical, from having worked with foundations for several years. Post-2008 foundation endowments dropped an average of 40 percent. Many grantmakers are turning down new programs, cutting staff, and narrowing their giving areas. Rather than blast conservation groups for taking corporate donations, I suggest a more nuanced approach. Be critical of what those donations are buying. Is a nonprofit’s logo splashed across websites of sketchy corporations? That is a signal to scrutinize the conservation work more closely. Is the nonprofit science or policy first? Any organization dealing primarily in policy and accepting corporate donations faces a transparancy issue. They should be made, perhaps, to post what corporate donations they receive, and in what amount, and for what project. Lastly, why is associating with “green” a successful or sought-out strategy for corporations? It’s due, in part, because consumers respond to that image. And businesses are after profit, not saving panda bears. This places a burden on us to not automatically “feel good” about a product or corporation because they have a conservation nonprofit partner. Heeding these emotional responses to things in the realm of profit and money is an important habit to get into. This post originally appeared in On The Ground

--------------------------

Read the original post at The Climate Community.