The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →The clearest available ranking of major U.S. environmental and climate grantmakers covers 2021: the Bezos Earth Fund ranked first, followed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Yield Giving. Their reported totals are not directly comparable climate-only figures, and they do not establish who gives the most today.
Who ranked highest in the 2021 U.S. list?
A January 4, 2023, GeekWire article reported Inside Philanthropy’s ranking of U.S. environmental and climate grantmakers for 2021. It named the Bezos Earth Fund, the Gates Foundation and Yield Giving as the top three. The figures below have different scopes and counting methods, so read them as entries in that ranking—not as a precise comparison of climate-only grants.
| Funder | Reported amount | What the figure represents |
|---|---|---|
| Bezos Earth Fund | $586 million in 2021 — Inside Philanthropy ranking, reported by GeekWire in 2023 | The fund’s reported 2021 giving in the ranking. GeekWire also reported that the fund gave $287 million in grants in 2022; that is a different year and should not be added to the 2021 total as if it were a single annual figure. |
| Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation | $398 million in 2021 — Gates Foundation agricultural-development giving, reported by GeekWire in 2023 | Agricultural development relevant to climate adaptation, not a complete climate-only total. GeekWire also noted $94 million for water, sanitation and hygiene in 2021 as a possible additional amount, depending on what a climate tally includes. |
| Yield Giving | An estimated $384 million in 2021 — Inside Philanthropy estimate, reported by GeekWire in 2023 | An estimate of environmental giving. GeekWire cautioned that it could be inflated because it includes organizations that identify as climate or environmental groups even when those are not their main priorities. |
The amounts answer “who was near the top of this particular list?” better than “who spent the most on climate alone?” For a fair comparison, the same year, geography, grant definition and treatment of related fields such as agriculture or water must be used for every funder.
Why the biggest headline figures need context
A pledge is not a year’s grants
Jeff Bezos created the Bezos Earth Fund in February 2020 with a commitment to spend $10 billion over a decade, as reported by GeekWire in 2023. That is a multi-year commitment, not the amount granted in 2021 or any other single year. The same GeekWire article reported $586 million for 2021 and $287 million in 2022 grants. It also mentioned an undisclosed additional contribution to a $1 billion ocean-related fund; because the contribution was not disclosed, it cannot be used to calculate the fund’s total giving.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
#1 Best Overall
Related work is not necessarily climate-only giving
Agricultural development can help farmers adapt to climate impacts, while water, sanitation and hygiene programs may be relevant to climate resilience. But including such work is a choice of scope. The Gates Foundation’s $398 million in agricultural-development giving and the possible $94 million in water, sanitation and hygiene giving are not presented here as a complete climate-only annual total.
An announced grant package is not automatically annual spending
GeekWire reported that Ballmer Group added climate change as a focus area and announced $217 million in grants in 2022 for work including deforestation, electric vehicles and wildlife conservation. The reported figure is an announced grant package; the available information does not establish it as annual climate spending.
Estimates can depend on which organizations count
Yield Giving’s estimated $384 million in environmental giving and third-place ranking may reflect organizations whose work is broader than climate or environmental issues. GeekWire also reported a $35 million grant to ClimateWorks Foundation’s Drive Electric Campaign in 2022. That specific grant is useful context, but it is not interchangeable with the 2021 estimate.
What later figures do—and do not—show
Later figures illustrate ongoing activity and growth in climate philanthropy, but they measure different things. They do not update the 2021 donor ranking on a like-for-like basis.
Rank #3
| Evidence | Measure and qualification | What it does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| ClimateWorks Foundation funding-trends report, 2026 | Estimated foundation funding for climate mitigation reached $6 billion in 2024, roughly 30% above 2023 and more than double 2020. The report says the full 2025 picture is still emerging. | A ranking of individual donors, or a total directly comparable to Inside Philanthropy’s U.S. environmental-and-climate list. |
| Bezos Earth Fund program page | The AI for Climate and Nature Grand Challenge launched in 2024 and received more than 1,000 proposals. | Grant dollars spent. A proposal count is not a funding total. |
| Gates Foundation 2025 annual report | $8.47 billion in charitable support across the foundation’s broader portfolio. The figure includes grants, direct charitable contracts and operational expenditures. | Climate-only grants or a climate-donor ranking. |
| Gates Foundation COP27 update, published in 2023 | A $1.4 billion commitment over 2022–2025 for initiatives helping poorer farmers adapt to climate impacts. The update’s chart treated 2022–2023 as actuals and 2024–2025 as projections at the time it was published. | A final audited total for the full period, or a one-year grant figure. |
| Associated Press report, 2025 | MacKenzie Scott made a $90 million grant to Forests, People, Climate. AP also reported that environmental groups received 9.4% of Scott’s 2024 gifts, according to research it cited. | A comparable annual total that would place Scott in the 2021 ranking. |
These figures span different years, geographies, and categories: a sector-wide mitigation estimate, a broad charitable-support total, a multi-year commitment, a grant, and a share of gifts. Combining them into a current leaderboard would create a comparison the underlying measures cannot support. The available evidence does not establish a current, apples-to-apples ranking across major donors.
What “the billionaires are in charge” means
Large private donors can direct substantial funding toward research, programs and organizations. That influence extends beyond the size of a grant: donors and their foundations can help determine which approaches receive attention and which organizations are funded.
In the GeekWire article, Michael Kavate, an Inside Philanthropy writer, described the pattern as “the billionaires are in charge.” He also wrote, “[T]he nation’s wealthiest people are now the ones both providing and calling the shots on how ‘America’s risk capital‘ — as philanthropists like to call it — confronts the myriad environmental crises we face,” as quoted by GeekWire on January 4, 2023.
The article also reported that billionaires invest in climate technology companies and advocate for policies, alongside their philanthropy. David Victor, co-director of the Deep Decarbonization Initiative at the University of California at San Diego, called this “a big factor in the way we are addressing climate change,” describing it as “This kind of hobbyist approach has become a big factor in the way we are addressing climate change,” as quoted by GeekWire. Victor also said, “In some cases the billionaires are making real progress,” according to the same article.
Best Value
One point of disagreement concerns carbon offsets. GeekWire reported that some critics object to offset approaches because they can allow emitters to continue emitting. That is a criticism of a particular approach, not proof that all donor-backed climate work has the same effect. Judging a program requires looking at what it funds, how results are measured and whether claims are independently supported.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How to assess a climate-giving claim
When a funder announces a large number, check what the number actually measures before comparing it with another donor’s figure.
Quick Recap
- Period: Is it grants made in one year, cumulative giving, a future pledge or a multi-year commitment?
- Scope: Does it cover climate mitigation, adaptation, nature protection, agriculture, water and sanitation, or the funder’s entire charitable portfolio?
- Geography: Is the ranking limited to U.S. grantmakers, or does it cover global activity?
- Counting method: Are only organizations primarily focused on climate included, or also groups that self-identify as environmental or climate-related?
- Accountability and influence: Who selects recipients, what spending and results are reported, and how does the donor’s investing or policy advocacy relate to its philanthropy?
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
