Fossil-Fuel-Friendly Environmentalism: How “The Groups” Undermined Clean Energy and Let Big Oil Off the Hook

Legacy Environmental Groups' Fossil Fuel Ties and Their Betrayal of the Earthrise Accord

Introduction: Climate Emergency Meets Compromised Green Leadership

As humanity grapples with an accelerating climate emergency, logic dictates that the nation's largest and most influential environmental organizations would stand resolutely at the forefront of the fight against fossil fuels. Yet the troubling reality reveals something starkly different: many prominent U.S. environmental groups—including the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), The Nature Conservancy, and Friends of the Earth—have historically exhibited a compromised form of environmentalism, frequently aligning themselves with fossil fuel interests rather than confronting them directly.

The phrase "the groups" gains significance in current strategic debates, notably articulated in Jonathan Chait’s recent Atlantic essay, "The Coming Democratic Civil War." Chait explores the emerging tensions within the Democratic Party, highlighting the rise of what is known as the "Abundance Agenda"—a forward-looking political strategy advocating for rapid deployment of abundant clean energy, housing, and infrastructure. Proponents of this agenda argue that traditional environmental advocacy, often characterized by incrementalism, obstructionism, and bureaucratic complexity, is insufficient for addressing contemporary crises effectively. Instead, they call for a bold, proactive approach that prioritizes delivering tangible results over maintaining institutional inertia and cautious compromise.

Within this discourse, the established environmental organizations collectively labeled as "the groups" are increasingly criticized for wielding considerable influence within environmental politics and policy yet repeatedly failing to deliver decisive action. This critique frames a fundamental tension explored in this essay: the profound disconnect between the public perception of these legacy organizations as climate leaders and the problematic realities of their alliances and policy choices.

Rather than embracing the bold systemic changes necessary for genuine climate action, these legacy environmental organizations have demonstrated institutional conservatism, profound risk aversion, and significant entanglements with major donors—some tied directly to oil and gas interests. Friends of the Earth, for instance, was initially funded by substantial donations from oil magnate Robert O. Anderson, establishing early ties that complicated its commitment to clean energy alternatives like nuclear power. This problematic nexus fostered an environmentalism in name only—one accommodating fossil fuels and actively suppressing viable clean-energy solutions, notably nuclear energy.

Political commentator Ruy Teixeira succinctly characterizes the internal dynamics of these groups: "Their ideology, 'the groups,' [and] the nonprofit-industrial complex... make it extremely difficult [to] tackle this kind of problem" (liberalpatriot.com). This cautious and accommodating posture has had severe consequences: undermining nuclear energy development, sidelining crucial accountability measures, and perpetuating the dominance of the fossil fuel industry. Organizations such as Friends of the Earth aggressively campaigned against nuclear power since the 1970s, unintentionally prolonging reliance on fossil fuels and weakening America's potential for rapid decarbonization.

In sharp contrast, the Earthrise Accord represents a fundamentally different vision of environmental advocacy and climate justice. Central to Earthrise Accord’s mission are two clear pillars: (1) rapidly transitioning away from fossil fuels toward genuinely clean and reliable energy sources, explicitly including nuclear power, and (2) rigorously holding fossil fuel corporations and complicit actors—"climate criminals"—accountable through legal action and public transparency campaigns. Earthrise Accord embodies the belief that genuine environmentalism demands clarity of purpose, courage in advocacy, and unwavering accountability.

This essay critically examines the historical record of these legacy environmental groups, providing concrete evidence of how their partnerships, financial ties, and policy positions systematically favored fossil fuel interests, even at the expense of urgently needed nuclear alternatives. By detailing Friends of the Earth's influential role in propagating anti-nuclear sentiment conveniently aligned with fossil fuel interests, we expose the troubling dynamics underpinning "the groups." Ultimately, we illustrate how their fossil-fuel-friendly approach severely undermines effective climate action, standing fundamentally at odds with the decisive, uncompromising principles championed by the Earthrise Accord.

Partnerships with Polluters: When Big Greens Befriended Big Oil & Gas

One of the starkest contradictions in legacy environmental groups’ history is their willingness to partner with, or accept funding from, fossil fuel companies. In some cases, these partnerships directly compromised the groups’ advocacy. For example:

• Sierra Club and “Bridge Fuel” Funding: The Sierra Club – America’s oldest and largest grassroots environmental group – quietly accepted over $25 million from the natural gas industry between 2007 and 2010. Most of this money came from Chesapeake Energy’s CEO, Aubrey McClendon, and was funneled into Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” campaigne360.yale.edu. At the time, Sierra Club publicly promoted natural gas as a “bridge fuel” to replace coal, even dispatching its Executive Director Carl Pope to join McClendon on roadshows touting gas over coale360.yale.edu. Pope never disclosed that Chesapeake was bankrolling this anti-coal/pro-gas effort. The financial tie effectively turned a premier environmental group into a gas lobby ally, until 2010 when a new Sierra Club director halted the practicee360.yale.edu. Nevertheless, the damage was done – Sierra Club’s ostensible climate crusade was co-opted to favor one fossil fuel (gas) over another, rather than champion truly clean alternatives.

• The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and BP’s “Green” Embrace: The Nature Conservancy, a mainstream conservation charity, cultivated especially cozy ties with BP, one of the world’s largest oil companies. BP was listed as a “Business Partner” of TNC, held a seat on TNC’s International Leadership Council, and contributed nearly $10 million in cash and land to TNC over the yearscorpwatch.orgcorpwatch.org. In return, TNC lent BP an Earth-friendly image – collaborating on projects like forest preservation and even joining BP-led coalitions to lobby on climate policycorpwatch.orgcorpwatch.org. This partnership backfired spectacularly in 2010 when BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig exploded. TNC’s leadership initially downplayed criticism of BP (“now is not the time for ranting,” wrote its CEO, pointedly not mentioning BP at first)corpwatch.org. Members and donors were outraged to learn of BP’s deep involvement with TNC, seeing it as “inherently incompatible” with TNC’s mission – akin to “a payoff” for BP’s greenwashingcorpwatch.orgcorpwatch.org. A TNC blogger wondered if the group’s “higher-ups…[were] pulling their punches” to avoid offending their oil benefactorcorpwatch.org. In hindsight, TNC’s entanglement with BP showed how a major green group effectively became complicit in fossil industry image-polishing, muting its voice even as oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico.

• Environmental Defense Fund’s Corporate Climate Club: Unlike Sierra Club and TNC, EDF claims it does not accept direct corporate donationscorpwatch.org. But EDF has partnered with fossil fuel corporations in policy forums, arguably giving industry a seat at the table it didn’t deserve. EDF joined BP, Shell, and other companies in the Partnership for Climate Action, an alliance promoting “market-based mechanisms” to cut emissionscorpwatch.org. It also helped convene the American Wind Wildlife Institute alongside BP Wind Energy, bringing together energy companies and green groups (including TNC, Sierra Club, and Audubon) to facilitate “responsible” wind farm developmentcorpwatch.org. While collaboration in itself isn’t bad, EDF’s approach often favored voluntary measures or incremental regulations palatable to industry. For instance, EDF has focused on methane leakage reductions in oil/gas operations and partnered with oil majors like BP on technical fixesbp.comoilchannel.tv. Its stance on fracking exemplified accommodation: when many called for banning fracking, EDF instead worked on “championing strong regulation” of natural gas drilling, explicitly choosing to work with the gas industry rather than oppose itblogs.edf.org. Internally, even EDF staff acknowledged that some allies “questioned why we are working on natural gas at all” instead of fighting itblogs.edf.org. The result was an organization that often acted as mediator between polluters and policymakers – tempering the urgency of action to something comfortable for corporate partners.

• NRDC and the Climate Policy Compromises: NRDC, too, has a history of pairing up with industry on climate initiatives that critics say are toothless. In the late 2000s, NRDC and EDF joined utility companies and oil firms in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) to advocate cap-and-trade legislation. The effort produced a “Blueprint for Legislative Action” so weak that even some environmentalists balked – it was described as “wimpy,” “coal-friendly,” and “rip-offset-heavy” by Grist, which shamed NRDC and EDF for supporting itgrist.orggrist.org. The USCAP plan would have permitted new coal power plants with only partial emission controls, a concession one analyst called “unilateral disarmament to…big fossil fuel companies”grist.orggrist.org. (Tellingly, one greener group, National Wildlife Federation, quit USCAP in protestgrist.org.) In agreeing to such compromises, NRDC and its peers essentially aligned with fossil-fueled utilities to shape climate policy on industry’s terms, rather than pressing for the transformative changes truly needed. More recently, EDF and others even joined the oil companies’ favored Climate Leadership Council, which championed a modest carbon tax coupled with a liability shield for polluters – a trade-off nearly 200 climate and justice groups (including many grassroots greens) decried as an unacceptable fossil industry giveawayclimateintegrity.orgclimateintegrity.org. That EDF’s logo sat alongside BP and Shell as a CLC “partner”clcouncil.org underscores how deeply enmeshed some big environmental NGOs became in the fossil-fuel-friendly policy arena.

These examples barely scratch the surface. From investing endowment funds in oil and gas ventures (the World Wildlife Fund and other environmental nonprofits were revealed in the Paradise Papers to have millions tied up in offshore fossil fuel fundsnonprofitquarterly.orgnonprofitquarterly.org) to inviting oil executives onto their boards, legacy green groups often blurred the line between watchdog and collaborator. The cumulative effect was a form of institutional greenwashing: fossil fuel companies gained respectability by association, while the environmental groups’ agendas grew cautious and compromised. Rather than vociferously opposing all fossil expansion, these organizations picked safer battles (like campaigning against coal while tacitly tolerating oil and gas) and preached gradual transitions that fossil executives could live with. This “fossil-fuel-friendly” environmentalism won the groups a seat at the table – but at the cost of their moral leadership.

Undermining Nuclear: How “The Groups” Sidelined a Clean Energy Alternative

Perhaps the greatest irony of the Big Greens’ fossil-friendly posture is how it coincided with their antagonism toward nuclear power – a zero-carbon energy source that could directly supplant coal, oil, and gas. Nuclear energy is a proven “clean firm power” option that can generate abundant electricity without greenhouse emissions, making it a vital tool for displacing fossil fuels. Yet many legacy environmental organizations spent decades fighting nuclear development, often in concert with (or even at the behest of) fossil fuel interests. This opposition significantly undermined the shift from dirty to clean energy.

Historically, the anti-nuclear stance of groups like Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and others served fossil fuel interests well. In the 1970s, as smog and soot choked American cities, utilities in states like Ohio planned to build nuclear plants to replace heavily polluting coal power. What happened? Ralph Nader and the Sierra Club led campaigns to stop those nuclear plants. They filed lawsuits, lobbied politicians, and stoked public fear about nuclear accidents – even as Ohio’s coal smoke was so thick that people had to turn on headlights in daytimeenvironmentalprogress.orgenvironmentalprogress.org. A secret memo from Sierra Club’s director at the time laid out this strategy bluntly: “Our campaign stressing the hazards of nuclear power will…add to the cost of the industry,” making reactors economically unviableenvironmentalprogress.org. The Club openly celebrated blocking six nuclear reactors in Ohio, never mind that the state then remained locked into coal pollution for a generationenvironmentalprogress.orgenvironmentalprogress.org. In effect, Big Coal was the beneficiary of Big Green’s triumph over nuclear. As one retrospective put it, Sierra Club and Nader “fought nuclear and sought coal instead,” however unintentionallyenvironmentalprogress.org.

It wasn’t just Ohio. Across the country, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, mainstream environmental organizations opposed nuclear power projects – often successfully – resulting in greater reliance on fossil fuels. Friends of the Earth (FOE), founded by David Brower after he left Sierra Club, was militantly anti-nuclear. Not coincidentally, FOE’s launch was bankrolled by a $200,000 donation from Robert O. Anderson – an oil magnate who had a keen interest in sidelining nuclear competitionans.orgforbes.com. (FOE’s first major campaign was to protest a proposed nuclear plant in Californiaen.wikipedia.org.) In hindsight, this looks like an oil executive seeding an “environmental” group to do what oil alone could not: make the public fear nuclear energy. Decades later, FOE and Greenpeace continued to crusade against nuclear in the U.S. and abroad, even as climate change worsened. A frustrated young climate activist recently slammed Greenpeace’s “old-fashioned and unscientific” anti-nuclear stance, saying it “serves fossil fuel interests instead of climate action”theguardian.comtheguardian.com. Her plea – that Greenpeace drop its legal fight to exclude nuclear power from Europe’s definition of sustainable investments – captures a broader generational rift. The youth see clearly what the old guard refused to admit: blocking nuclear helps prolong the reign of fossil fuels.

The Big Greens’ antipathy to nuclear persisted well into the 21st century. NRDC and Sierra Club, for example, actively supported closing existing nuclear plants, even if it meant lost clean power. In 2016, NRDC, Sierra Club, and FOE struck a deal with California’s utility PG&E to shut down the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant – the last nuclear station in California, producing nearly 9% of the state’s electricity – and replace it with renewable energy by 2025washingtonpost.comwashingtonpost.com. Several prominent climate scientists implored them to reconsider (Diablo Canyon’s closure would eliminate a huge source of carbon-free power), but the groups insisted the plant’s seismic siting posed too much riskwashingtonpost.com. NRDC’s energy program co-director argued that efficiency and wind/solar could fill the gap, dismissing nuclear as inflexible and outdatedwashingtonpost.com. The reality has been more sobering: as Diablo Canyon’s shutdown neared, California struggled to expand renewables and grid storage fast enough, raising fears that fossil-fueled electricity (natural gas) would fill the void. Indeed, a few years later California’s governor reconsidered and moved to extend Diablo Canyon’s life, recognizing that losing it could jeopardize climate goals. The episode illustrated how legacy groups’ reflexive anti-nuclear stance – rooted in 1970s-era fears – became a liability for climate action. Even moderate environmental organizations never mustered “anything approaching advocacy” for nuclear technology, sticking at best to a tepid “not anti-nuke, but…” positionthebreakthrough.org. And roughly from Sierra Club and NRDC leftward, the movement remained adamantly opposed to expanding nuclear energythebreakthrough.org.

Crucially, this institutional bias against nuclear played directly into the hands of fossil fuel interests. Oil, gas, and coal companies long understood that every nuclear plant canceled or closed meant continued demand for their products. Internal fossil fuel memos from past decades (and well-funded disinformation campaigns) often exaggerated the dangers of nuclear power to turn public opinion – a strategy now documented as a twin deception alongside climate denial. Earthrise Accord explicitly calls out this facet: fossil fuel giants not only lied about climate change, they “spread false narratives about nuclear power, actively undermining its credibility…as a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels”earthriseaccord.org. Disturbingly, they did so “indirectly via deceptive front groups posing as environmental organizations”, with FOE singled out as a key exampleearthriseaccord.org. In other words, some of the loudest “green” voices against nuclear energy may have been echoing oil industry propaganda. And even when not industry-funded, the big environmental NGOs’ anti-nuclear ideology achieved the same result: propping up the fossil status quo. The Earthrise Accord’s mission statement notes that fossil-fuel-funded disinformation – including misinformation spread by legacy environmental groups – undermined the promise of nuclear power in the United Statesearthriseaccord.org. France, by contrast, chose to deploy nuclear at scale in the 1970s and now enjoys low-carbon electricity and energy independenceearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org. The U.S. took the path urged by “the groups” – and remains far more fossil-fuel dependent.

In sum, the Big Greens presented a one-two punch of fossil-friendly environmentalism: they helped curtail a major clean energy competitor (nuclear) while cutting deals with, or taking funds from, fossil fuel companies. This posture directly contradicts the Earthrise Accord’s first pillar: aggressively replacing fossil fuels with all viable clean alternatives. Earthrise Accord embraces “nuclear realism,” recognizing nuclear power’s “unmatched potential as a safe, clean, and scalable replacement for fossil fuels,” alongside other renewablesearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org. Legacy environmentalism, by contrast, often wrote nuclear out of the script – even when that meant slower decarbonization and continued fossil burning. It is a stark failure of vision that has cost us precious time in the climate fight.

The Dog That Didn’t Bark: Failure to Hold Climate Criminals Accountable

Just as telling as what the big environmental groups did (partner with polluters, undermine nuclear) is what they did not do: they failed to lead in holding fossil fuel companies accountable for the climate crisis. Despite ample evidence, dating back decades, of oil and gas giants deceiving the public about climate change, these legacy organizations have been notably absent or timid in efforts to call out, litigate, or punish the “climate criminals.” This reluctance stands in sharp contrast to the Earthrise Accord’s second core pillar – pursuing legal and public accountability for fossil fuel actors – and has allowed Big Oil to evade scrutiny for far too long.

Consider the model of tobacco litigation in the 1990s: health advocates and state attorneys general teamed up to sue cigarette companies for lying about addiction and harm, winning massive settlements and public admissions. One might expect Big Green groups to mount a similar crusade against ExxonMobil, Chevron, and other oil majors once it emerged that “Exxon knew” about climate change in the 1970s and misled everyone. Instead, the charge was led by investigative journalists, academics, and smaller advocacy outfits. None of the major environmental organizations initially took Exxon or its peers to court over climate deception. In fact, when cities and states began filing climate liability lawsuits in the late 2010s, they did so largely without Big Green at the helm. Those suits – by New York, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, San Francisco, and dozens more – were spearheaded by state AGs and city attorneys, often with support from specialized climate accountability groups (like the Center for Climate Integrity or Greenpeace). Groups like Sierra Club or NRDC were supportive in principle, but notably absent as named plaintiffs. It was not until very recently that Sierra Club joined a coalition suing ExxonMobil – and that was a localized suit (in California, over harm to communities) filed in 2024, nearly thirty years after the first IPCC report warned of climate catastropheclimateintegrity.org.

This reticence traces back to the Big Greens’ strategic choices. For years, organizations such as EDF and NRDC preferred “collaboration” over confrontation with industry, believing they could achieve more through negotiated policies than courtroom battles. They invested in partnerships like USCAP and the Climate Leadership Council, which sought consensus solutions and even offered industry legal immunity in exchange for mild carbon pricingclimateintegrity.org. It’s telling that nearly 200 other groups – including frontline community organizations and climate justice networks – found it necessary in 2025 to explicitly warn Democrats not to grant Big Oil any liability shieldclimateintegrity.orgclimateintegrity.org. The implication is clear: the establishment-friendly climate deal (endorsed by some Big Greens and corporate players) had included letting polluters off the hook, a proposal an Earthrise Accord advocate would call unconscionable. Indeed, Earthrise’s vision is to prosecute fossil fuel companies and even petro-states under international law for their decades of deception and ecological harmearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org – essentially the polar opposite of making peace with Exxon.

Even in the court of public opinion, the legacy groups’ fire at fossil fuel companies was often muffled. The Nature Conservancy’s BP episode during the Gulf oil spill is a case in point. While the Gulf Coast was drowning in oil, TNC’s chief wrote about the tragedy without naming BP at first, urging against “ranting”corpwatch.org. Only after backlash did he mention BP and gently suggest we need to move away from oilcorpwatch.org. This kid-gloves treatment reflects how donor entanglements and a desire to appear “reasonable” constrained the advocacy of big organizations. A TNC focus group in 2001 had found many members felt partnering with oil made the Conservancy less inclined to hold that oil company accountablecorpwatch.orgcorpwatch.org – and the Deepwater Horizon response seemed to prove them right. As one conservation blogger put it, “You have to wonder whether [TNC] higher-ups are pulling their punches” with BPcorpwatch.org. Pulling punches has been a hallmark of Big Green rhetoric on climate culprits. While grassroots climate activists label fossil fuel executives “climate criminals” and “polluters” at rallies, the staff of a group like EDF or NRDC would typically use technocratic language about “reducing emissions” and “holding stakeholders accountable” without pointing fingers. Only in recent years, under pressure from youth movements and mounting evidence of oil company lies, have some legacy orgs toughened their tone. (NRDC’s website now openly talks about “Big Oil’s campaign of lies” and calls for accountabilitynrdc.org – a welcome shift, but one that came far too late and largely in response to others’ leadership.)

Where the Big Greens eschewed aggressive tactics, the slack was picked up by new and grassroots forces. Youth-led movements like the Sunrise Movement, climate justice groups, and city and state governments took on the fight to name and shame Big Oil. They staged Exxon Knew protests, launched legal challenges, and even pushed Congress to hold hearings on climate disinformation. For example, in 2021 the U.S. House held high-profile hearings grilling oil CEOs about their denial campaigns – an effort driven by legislators and activists, not the traditional environmental NGOs. Meanwhile, Earthrise Accord champions the idea of treating fossil fuel deception as what it is: a historic crime against humanity and the planet. Earthrise explicitly draws parallels to ecocide, arguing that reckless extraction and misinformation constitute egregious harmearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org. It plans to pursue fossil fuel companies in courts (even international tribunals if needed) for their lies and for sabotaging solutions like nuclear energyearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org. This is the kind of hard-nosed accountability that legacy organizations long avoided. Their stance was more often “let’s work with the Exxons and BPs on moderate solutions, not vilify them”. In hindsight, this amounted to shielding the perpetrators of climate change from the full consequences of their actions, and it delayed a societal reckoning that is only now beginning.

To be fair, a few major green groups have started joining the accountability bandwagon under public pressure. Sierra Club, for instance, signed on to the March 2025 coalition letter opposing fossil fuel immunity, alongside more confrontational groups like Earthjustice and the Sunrise Movementclimateintegrity.orgclimateintegrity.org. This indicates an evolution born of necessity: as climate impacts worsen and public outrage grows, even the cautious Big Greens see that aligning with “climate criminals” is reputational suicide. But these late moves cannot erase years of inaction and half measures. The fact remains that during the crucial early decades of the climate fight – when bold legal strikes against Big Oil’s fraud might have changed the narrative – the largest environmental organizations chose not to act. In doing so, they implicitly granted social license to fossil fuel companies, treating them as partners to negotiate with rather than actors in desperate need of accountability.

Earthrise Accord vs. Legacy Environmentalism: A Clash of Visions

The contrast between the Earthrise Accord principles and the behavior of legacy environmental groups could not be more striking. It is, in essence, a clash of visions for how to tackle the climate crisis:

• Earthrise Principle 1: Full Fossil Fuel Replacement (Including Nuclear). Earthrise Accord insists that we must replace fossil fuels with all available clean technologies, embracing nuclear power alongside renewables to achieve a rapid and realistic decarbonization. It emphasizes nuclear energy’s “essential” role as the only firm, scalable power source capable of complementing wind and solar to fully displace fossil fuelsearthriseaccord.org. Legacy groups, however, fell short of this vision. The Sierra Club, NRDC, EDF, and others for years promoted a narrower agenda of renewables and efficiency, often excluding or downplaying nuclear. They not only excluded nuclear from their own advocacy – they actively resisted it. This left a gaping hole in the clean energy transition. By treating nuclear as taboo, “the groups” effectively left a seat open for natural gas to style itself as the necessary bridge. Indeed, Sierra Club’s gas-funded “bridge fuel” campaign is a textbook example: rather than pivot from coal to zero-carbon nuclear, they helped pivot from coal to methane, locking in continued carbon emissionse360.yale.edue360.yale.edu. Such actions are antithetical to Earthrise’s approach of “powering the transition with truth and atoms”earthriseaccord.org – truth meaning honesty about fossil culpability, and atoms meaning nuclear energy. Where Earthrise lauds France’s nuclear build-out for preventing “billions of tons” of carbon emissionsearthriseaccord.org, legacy U.S. greens fought similar progress at home, contributing to decades of stalled nuclear development and thus higher cumulative emissions. In short, Earthrise Accord’s clean-energy-abundance ethos exposes how insufficient the Big Greens’ incremental renewables-only strategy has been. An abundance agenda calls for more: more energy, more infrastructure, and using every tool (from solar panels to nuclear reactors) to eliminate fossil fuels. The old guard, locked into a 20th-century paradigm of scarcity and fear of technologies, “froze our energy future in amber”, to paraphrase abundance advocatesliberalpatriot.com – and we are now paying the price in climate delay.

• Earthrise Principle 2: Accountability for Climate Crimes. The Earthrise Accord is fundamentally about holding fossil fuel actors accountable – legally, financially, and socially – for the damage and deception they’ve wrought. It talks of prosecuting oil companies for fraud and even ecocideearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org, and of confronting petro-states that continue to pump out emissionsearthriseaccord.org. This is a justice-driven approach, treating Big Oil not as a stakeholder to appease, but as a malfeasant industry to be reined in by law. Legacy environmentalism took almost the opposite tack: conciliation and appeasement. By partnering with fossil companies on voluntary initiatives, by hesitating to litigate or campaign against them, the Big Greens extended these companies a form of soft impunity. Even when evidence of oil company lies emerged, the response from “the groups” was tepid. Contrast that with Earthrise’s sense of urgency: the initiative explicitly cites the California climate lawsuit against Big Oil as a model and vows to build on itearthriseaccord.org. It’s pushing for what amounts to a climate reckoning akin to the tobacco trials or even war-crimes tribunals. The legacy groups, by comparison, often acted as if “now is not the time” for blame (recall TNC during Deepwater Horizoncorpwatch.org) or as if working with polluters was the only practical path. The result was a kind of institutional Stockholm syndrome – an environmental movement that identified more with “managing” fossil fuel dependence than ending it, that placed politeness and access over truth-telling. Earthrise Accord and its allies reject that mentality. They argue, in essence, that there can be no real climate solution without calling out and penalizing the perpetrators of climate change. This philosophy aligns with the growing grassroots demand for climate justice: the idea that those who have profited from wrecking the planet should pay for restoration and face legal consequences. It also aligns with the mounting evidence of bad faith: from Exxon’s cover-ups to Shell’s spin tactics, we now know these companies operated with a mens rea (guilty mind) regarding climate harm. Yet the Big Greens rarely pressed that case. By failing to litigate or loudly demand corporate accountability, they fell short of the Earthrise Accord’s justice pillar – and, arguably, of the moment. Only now, as external pressures rise, are they gingerly following the lead of more aggressive actors.

At heart, the Earthrise vs. Legacy divide is about courage and clarity versus caution and complacency. The Earthrise Accord calls for “uncompromising clarity” at a time of crisisearthriseaccord.org. It does not mince words about “climate criminals” or hesitate to champion a politically controversial technology (nuclear) because science and justice demand it. The legacy approach was governed by fear – fear of alienating donors, fear of political backlash, fear of the unknown. For instance, Earthrise highlights that one of Apollo 8’s astronauts, Bill Anders (who took the famous Earthrise photo in 1968), later became a nuclear energy advocate and NRC chairmanearthriseaccord.org. Anders spent decades championing nuclear power’s promise while “fossil fuel-funded disinformation, including [from] some legacy environmentalist groups, undermined that promise”earthriseaccord.org. This anecdote is powerful: a space-age thinker versus a coalition of timid greens under the sway of fossil-fueled fear-mongering. Anders and Earthrise stand for innovation and accountability, whereas “the groups” became, in effect, the brakes on progress – inadvertently doing Big Oil’s bidding by blocking nuclear and pulling punches.

Fossil-Fuel-Friendly Environmentalism: In Name Only

It becomes evident that the Big Green organizations practiced a form of “fossil-fuel-friendly environmentalism” that was environmental in name, but not in substance. They often claimed the mantle of climate leadership while enabling the fossil fuel industry to continue business as usual. This posture has increasingly drawn ire from across the spectrum – from ecomodernists who argue these groups impede an abundance of clean energy, to climate justice activists who see them as part of an establishment protecting corporate polluters. In the emerging lexicon of the Abundance Agenda, “the groups” are almost a slur: shorthand for well-funded NGOs whose litany of regulations, lawsuits (against infrastructure), and NIMBYist tendencies slow down building the solutions we needliberalpatriot.comliberalpatriot.com. Yet paradoxically, when it came to holding fossil fuel companies accountable, those same groups were sluggish or silent. In other words, they were quick to sue to block a nuclear plant or a pipeline (protecting local environmental interests, to their credit), but loath to sue the oil company that wanted the pipeline built. They would insist on exhaustive environmental review for a wind farm or transmission line – delaying clean energy deployment – while having happily collaborated with BP or Shell on a “market mechanism” plan. This inconsistency has led critics to charge that legacy environmentalism had “the wrong priorities”, focusing on symbolic or marginal wins while the climate crisis barrelled on. As Teixeira notes, the priorities of these liberal environmental groups often made it “extremely difficult” to embrace practical solutions, be it nuclear energy or streamlined green infrastructureliberalpatriot.com.

It’s worth noting that some of this fossil-friendliness was not borne of malice or corruption, but of an institutional culture that valued incrementalism and respectability. The Big Greens grew into large, professionalized nonprofits – part of a “nonprofit-industrial complex” – reliant on foundation grants, wealthy donors, and insider accessliberalpatriot.com. Their leaders frequently came from or moved into government and corporate roles, blurring lines. For example, NRDC’s co-founder John Bryson later became CEO of a major electric utility (and even U.S. Commerce Secretary). The Nature Conservancy famously hired a Goldman Sachs executive, Mark Tercek, as its CEO, reflecting a strategy of “wooing business partners” to fund its workedf.org. With such intertwinement, it’s little surprise these groups grew risk-averse – hesitant to call a powerful CEO a criminal or to champion an energy source (nuclear) that their base associated with danger. Donor influence also played a role: many big foundations funding environmental work (often tied to old industrial fortunes) were comfortable with measured, non-disruptive approaches. The Packard Foundation, for instance, has given millions to climate and environmental causes – but was revealed to have $50 million personally invested in oil and gas projects at the same timeicij.orgicij.org. One cannot serve two masters: a nonprofit dependent on such funding might unconsciously avoid rocking the boat. It’s hard to imagine an NRDC, whose donors include those entwined with the status quo, coming out and saying “Exxon executives belong in jail” or “we need hundreds of new nuclear plants.” Yet those are precisely the kinds of bold stances the climate emergency demands.

Meanwhile, grassroots and newer climate voices have been far less compromising. They increasingly brand Big Oil as bad faith actors and push for aggressive solutions. This has put legacy groups on the defensive, accused of being “in name only” environmentalists. The phrase implies that while these organizations talk about saving the planet, their actions – or inaction – have been functionally friendly to fossil fuel interests. It’s a harsh charge, but as we’ve seen, not without evidence: whether intentionally (like taking gas money) or incidentally (opposing nuclear), the Big Greens often advanced outcomes that benefited fossil fuel companies. Little wonder that a growing chorus of critics – from pro-nuclear climate advocates to frontline communities – are saying that traditional environmental NGOs cannot be trusted to lead the climate fight going forward. Their strategy of incremental change and polite partnership has, in the eyes of many, been discredited by the accelerating crisis. Even now, as wildfires burn and floods rage, one senses that some of these groups still look for modest “wins” instead of the transformative change required.

Conclusion: Breaking the De Facto Alliance with Fossil Fuels

Humanity’s window to avert catastrophic climate change is closing rapidly. In this pivotal moment, the last thing we need is an environmental movement tethered to the interests of fossil fuel companies. Yet for much of the climate era, that is what we had. The major legacy environmental groups – Sierra Club, EDF, NRDC, The Nature Conservancy, and their peers – for years constituted a de facto alliance with fossil fuel interests. Through a mix of institutional conservatism, financial entanglements, and outdated ideology, they practiced a form of environmentalism that too often soothed, rather than challenged, the fossil fuel status quo. They accepted oil and gas money and partnerships that blunted their critique; they undermined one of the key solutions (nuclear power) that threaten fossil dominance; and they shrank from holding oil and gas executives accountable for climate destruction and deceit. In doing so, they fell out of step with the very movement they claimed to lead, and with the demands of justice and science.

The Earthrise Accord represents the kind of course correction that is urgently needed. Its pillars – replace fossil fuels with all clean alternatives, and hold climate criminals to account – are as direct and uncompromising as the legacy approach was convoluted and conciliatory. To live up to those principles, environmental advocacy must unapologetically support clean firm power like nuclear (alongside wind, solar, etc.) and pursue legal strategies that put Big Oil in the crosshairs. This means no more cynical politicking about “bridge fuels.” No more quietly investing in or taking money from the industries destroying our planet. No more sidelining of technologies that can help because of ideological baggage. And no more shielding of corporate polluters – in the courtroom, in Congress, or in public discourse.

It is heartening that a new generation of activists, analysts, and even some politicians are embracing an “abundance agenda” for climate action, one that inherently rejects the old scarcity-minded, fossil-cozy paradigm. This agenda says we need “more stuff people actually want, more of the time” – from clean energy infrastructure to affordable transit – and that bureaucratic hurdles and antiquated green dogmas must not stand in the wayliberalpatriot.comliberalpatriot.com. In energy terms, that means building more carbon-free power fast (including nuclear plants and transmission lines) and not letting “the groups” obstruct it with endless litigation over every inch of terrainliberalpatriot.comliberalpatriot.com. It also means recognizing that fossil fuel companies will not dismantle themselves – they must be compelled through law and policy. The time for polite, partial measures is over. As Earthrise Accord puts it, our global “spaceship Earth” demands “collective responsibility” and a unified effort to turn the tideearthriseaccord.org. We cannot afford big environmental institutions that are part of the problem.

In calling out the legacy environmental groups, we should acknowledge their past contributions – many fought valiantly to curb pollution and protect wildlife – but also be clear-eyed about their failings on climate. This is not merely an exercise in blame, but a lesson in strategy. Climate change is an existential threat, and defeating it requires unflinching honesty and bold action. The Earthrise Accord’s principles offer a compass: do whatever it takes to replace fossil fuels with clean energy, and pursue climate justice by holding perpetrators accountable. Any organization that claims to work on climate must be measured against these pillars. By that measure, the old Big Greens have fallen short. They became too comfortable, too entwined with the powers that be – an establishment that has led us into the climate emergency.

Ultimately, the path forward may involve reforming these institutions or perhaps bypassing them in favor of new coalitions that adhere to Earthrise-like values. What’s certain is that the environmentalism of accommodation is dead; the environmentalism of accountability and abundance must rise in its place. The stakes are simply too high to do otherwise. In the words of the Earthrise Accord, “the global addiction to fossil fuel…will not end voluntarily”earthriseaccord.org – it must be ended by us, through courage, innovation, and yes, confrontation when necessary. It’s time for the environmental movement to decisively cut its fossil-fuel-friendly ties and truly lead the charge toward a fossil-free future. Anything less is just green window dressing – and Mother Earth, now in upheaval, can see right through it.

Sources:

• Sierra Club funding from natural gas industrye360.yale.edue360.yale.edu; Sierra Club anti-nuclear campaigns in 1970senvironmentalprogress.orgenvironmentalprogress.org.

• The Nature Conservancy partnerships and funding from BPcorpwatch.orgcorpwatch.org; internal backlash during Deepwater Horizoncorpwatch.orgcorpwatch.org.

• Environmental Defense Fund collaborations with BP/Shell (Partnership for Climate Action)corpwatch.org and stance on natural gas regulationblogs.edf.org.

• NRDC and EDF endorsing industry-friendly climate policy (USCAP)grist.orggrist.org; NRDC role in Diablo Canyon nuclear closurewashingtonpost.comwashingtonpost.com.

• Greenpeace/FOE anti-nuclear stance aiding fossil fuelstheguardian.comtheguardian.com; FOE funded by oil interests to fight nuclearans.orgforbes.com.

• Earthrise Accord mission and principlesearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org; call for prosecuting fossil fuel deception and nuclear misinformationearthriseaccord.orgearthriseaccord.org.

• Climate accountability efforts and Big Greens’ limited involvementclimateintegrity.orgclimateintegrity.org; EDF in Climate Leadership Council alongside oil companiesclcouncil.org.

• Critiques of “the groups” in abundance agenda contextliberalpatriot.comliberalpatriot.com.

• Paradise Papers revelations on NGO fossil investmentsnonprofitquarterly.orgicij.org.

• Breakthrough Institute on mainstream greens’ continued nuclear hesitancethebreakthrough.orgthebreakthrough.org.