In this figure I put together, I look back at the funding strategies and investments between 2007-2010 of the major foundations focused on climate change, a network known as the "Design to Win" Coalition. The graph shows a strong focus on a carbon pricing, soft path policy and technology strategy; with limited focus on promoting the role of government in fostering innovation; the development of cleaner or next generation "hard technologies," on societal resilience and adaptation and/or the needs of those most vulnerable to climate impacts and energy costs. For more on this analysis, see Chapter 2 of the 2011 report I wrote, linked below. Nisbet, M.C. (2011). Climate Shift: Clear Vision for the Next Decade of Public Debate. Washington, DC: American University, School of Communication. http://climateshiftproject.org/report/climate-shift-clear-vision-for-the-next-decade-of-public-debate/#chapter-2

1. THE DESIGN TO WIN STRATEGY
Amount in Grants Associated with Specific Goal / Technology 2007 – 2010
Note: Foundations analyzed include Climateworks, Hewlett, Kresge, Packard, Energy, Seachange, McKight, and Oak. A total of $368 million was distributed
across 1248 grants; other programs and goals funded not shown, see full report.
Source: Nisbet, M.C. (2011). Climate Shift: Clear Vision for the Next Decade of Public Debate. Washington, DC: American University, School of Communication.
$0.45M
$1.9M
$3.8M
no funding
$0.2M
$1.2M
$2.4M
$4M
$29M
$29M
$32M
$33M
$39M
Promoting Social Justice & Equity
Protecting Public Health
Promoting Adaptation
Nuclear Energy
Evaluating Natural Gas
Role of Govt in Innovation / R&D
Evaluating Carbon Capture
Expanding Public Transport
Fuel Economy Standards
Int Agreement
Renewables
Cap & Trade
Efficiency Standards
Carbon Pricing & Soft Path Strategy
Innovation & Hard Path Strategy
Resilience & Human Security Strategy