Over the past several months, I’ve heard a lot of talk about a “third wave” of philanthropy, fueled by new wealth from tech—especially AI—and finance. Unsurprisingly, the topic featured in many discussions at Climate Week, including one hosted by Maliasili at the Sidebar.
I am not a philanthropist, but I do engage with that world and was invited to participate. Following insightful remarks by Fred Nelson on the impacts of declining overseas development assistance programs, emerging sources and models of conservation finance, and the growing importance of local and Indigenous leadership, I reviewed a few philanthropic trends:
1/ More “big bet” philanthropy. This can put a lot of money behind a problem quickly, though funders may also have fairly specific ideas about how it should be spent.
2/ Philanthropic resources are growing. According to a recent ClimateWorks Foundation report, climate mitigation philanthropy reached an estimated $11.7-18.4 billion in 2024; foundation funding alone reached $6 billion, about 30% above 2023 and more than double that of 2020.
3/ More funders seem to be recognizing the intersection of climate and nature, though silos remain.
4/ There is much more discussion of “local leadership.” But I still see cases where local organizations are expected to implement plans largely developed elsewhere. One question for funders: “Are we funding a local organization to carry out somebody else’s plan?”
5/ The landscape has changed quickly, but we should be careful not to overstate how much of that money has actually reached the groups doing frontline conservation. The ClimateWorks report showed that 70% of tracked funding directed to particular places still went to the U.S. and Europe (with a caveat that Global South organizations may have entities in Europe and the U.S. for fundraising purposes).
The AI wealth question, of course, came up. My view is that AI wealth may eventually produce major philanthropy, but it is premature to assume that paper valuations will translate into real money for the work people in the room are doing. Why? Conservation is not a software problem. Results can take years and often depend on relationships, legitimacy, political conditions, and institutions that are difficult to measure. That can sit awkwardly with funding approaches built around speed and easily attributable/measurable results. Some of the things conservation depends on, like local buy-in and a healthy information ecosystem, can be difficult to fit into a conventional results framework or quantify on a dashboard. Nor do they seem of much interest to many of the Silicon Valley leaders I’ve met.
I ended with another question: “What would the people closest to this problem fund if they had full say over the money?”
