Center for International Environmental Law

The Center for International Environmental Law has been supported by left-leaning climate foundations such as Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors ($2.4 million cumulative donations during the period), ³ Sequoia Climate Fund ($2,000,000 cumulative), ⁴ National Philanthropic Trust ($1.5 million), ⁵ JPB Foundation ($950,000), ⁶ Marisla Foundation ($925,000) ⁷ and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation ($800,000). ⁸ The leadership and board members of CIEL have been employed or held board positions with other left-leaning climate nonprofits such as Greenpeace, ⁹ Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, ¹⁰ Greenwatch Uganda, ^{11 12} Defenders of Wildlife, ⁹ Accountability Counsel, ¹³ the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), ¹³ the Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide. ¹³ and the National Whistleblower Center (NWC). ¹⁴

Climate Policy Positions

The Center for International Environmental Law opposes the use of carbon emitting fuels such as petroleum, coal, and low carbon natural gas. CIEL has also joined coalitions that oppose the use of carbon free nuclear power, produced reports opposing the development of carbon free hydro-electric dams, and opposed the deployment of technologies that would remove carbon emissions from the atmosphere. ^{15 2 16}

CIEL has endorsed the development of weather dependent wind and solar energy projects. ¹⁵

World Bank Energy Assistance Report

CIEL co-produced a March 2023 report that advocated for the World Bank Group to restrict its energy financing to only “renewable” projects. These included primarily weather dependent wind and solar power, but also geothermal and wave energy systems. The coproducers of the report were Recourse and Trend Asia, two other international climate policy groups.  Founded in 1947, the World Bank is an international financial alliance that allows wealthier, developed nations to provide loans and other economic development assistance to middle and low-income nations. ^{17 15}

The report urged the World Bank not to provide financial aid when developing nations pursued upgrades to their energy use through projects using hydrocarbon fuels, such as petroleum, natural gas, and coal. The report also advised that the World Bank deny aid assistance for projects funding nuclear energy and large hydro-electric dams, both of which produce no carbon emissions. ¹⁵

Opposition to Net Zero

United Nations (UN) member states have agreed to a “net zero” carbon emissions target as part of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. The UN defines “net zero” as “cutting carbon emissions to a small amount of residual emissions that can be absorbed and durably stored by nature and other carbon dioxide removal measures, leaving zero in the atmosphere.” ^{18 19}

The Center for International Environmental Law is part of a so-called “real zero” coalition that has denounced net zero as “hollow” goals that “mask climate inaction and provide cover for business-as-usual fossil fuel production that spells planetary destruction.” A March 2023 report co-produced by CIEL defined “real zero” as “zero carbon greenhouse gas emissions across the full energy cycle . . . to avoid the dependence on unproven technologies, false solutions or unsustainable carbon offsets.” In a November 2021 news release promoting real zero, a CIEL spokesperson said the group refused to “applaud misguided efforts to ‘fix’ fossil fuels rather than ditch them for safer, proven renewables, or to pretend that we can trade reductions ‘here’ for emissions ‘there,’ when we need transformation everywhere.” ^{20 15}

Opposition to Nuclear Energy

In May of 2021, Center for International Environmental Law was one of 715 groups and businesses listed as a co-signer on a letter to the leadership of the U.S. House and Senate that referred to nuclear energy as a “dirty” form of energy production and a “significant” source of pollution. The letter asked federal lawmakers to reduce carbon emissions by creating a “renewable electricity standard” that promoted production of weather dependent power sources such as wind turbines and solar panels, but did not promote low carbon natural gas and zero carbon nuclear energy. ²

Nuclear power plants produce no carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions, and as of 2021 accounted for 19 percent of American electricity production—the largest source of zero carbon electricity in the United States. ²¹ An October 2018 proposal from The Nature Conservancy noted that zero-carbon nuclear plants produced 7.8 percent of total world energy output and recommended reducing carbon emissions by increasing nuclear capacity to 33 percent of total world energy output. ²²

Center for International Environmental Law was one of more than 600 co-signing organizations on a January 2019 open letter to Congress titled “Legislation to Address the Urgent Threat of Climate Change.” The signatories declared their support for new laws to bring about “100 percent decarbonization” of the transportation sector but denounced nuclear power as an example of “dirty energy” that should not be included in any legislation promoting the use of so-called “renewable energy.” ²³

Opposition to Carbon Capture

The Center for International Environmental Law has opposed the deployment of carbon dioxide capture technology. As of March 2024, carbon capture, also called carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), was an emerging technology that would allow carbon dioxide emitting energy systems such as coal and natural gas powerplants to prevent carbon dioxide emissions from entering the atmosphere. In some cases, the captured carbon would be sequestered in storage canals within the Earth, and in others the gas could be sold and used for other commercial purposes. In a November 2023 news release denouncing a plan to bury captured carbon dioxide emissions beneath the ocean seabed, a CIEL spokesperson said that CCS was “a false promise that only helps to keep fossil fuel facilities running and oil and gas fields pumping.” ²⁴

Opposition to Inflation Reduction Act

The Center for International Environmental Law criticized the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA). A 2024 estimate from the U.S. Treasury projected the subsidies for wind power, solar energy and other non-traditional energy sources would cost U.S. taxpayers $425 billion over the ten years terminating in 2033. ^{25 26}

When the IRA passed the U.S. Senate in August 2022, CIEL issued a statement criticizing the legislation because it failed to eliminate hydrocarbon fuels and because the IRA provided funding for carbon capture and storage technology. ²⁵

“The investments in renewable energy, electrification, and efficiency are critical components of an energy transition, but they by themselves will not displace fossil fuels,” said a CIEL spokesperson. “The enormous and virtually unlimited subsidies for carbon capture and storage and fossil hydrogen are nothing but a lifeline to coal, oil, and gas companies, locking in another generation of fossil fuel infrastructure when we desperately need to move beyond it.” ²⁵

“Avoiding further climate catastrophe demands massive investment in renewables, electric vehicles, and energy efficiency, and immediate measures to halt oil and gas expansion and accelerate the phaseout of fossil fuels,” said the CIEL spokesman in a July 2022 news release opposing the IRA. ²⁷

Funding

IRS filings covering 2018 through 2022 from the Center for International Environmental Law show revenue growth of several hundred percent.  In its 2018 filing, CIEL reported total revenue of just over $2.3 million. Reported revenue grew steadily in each of the next five years, and CIEL reported total revenue of $10.4 million in 2022. ²⁸

IRS filings covering 2001 through 2018 show CIEL’s annual revenue during that period did not exceed $4 million during any year, and for all but two years between 2011 and 2018 the group reported total revenue of less than $3 million. ²⁹

Left-leaning foundation donors that gave a cumulative total of more than $12.5 million to CIEL during the five years up through the 2022 IRS filing period included Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors ($2.4 million cumulative donations during the period), ³ Sequoia Climate Fund ($2 million cumulative), ⁴ National Philanthropic Trust ($1.5 million), ⁵ JPB Foundation ($950,000), ⁶ Marisla Foundation ($925,000) ⁷ Charles Stewart Mott Foundation ($800,000), ⁸ Environmental Investigation Agency ($698,000), ³⁰ Schmidt Family Foundation ($675,000), ³¹ Zegar Family Foundation ($500,000), ³² Wellspring Philanthropic Fund ($475,000), ³³ CS Fund ($355,000), ³⁴ Passport Foundation ($305,000), ³⁵ High Tide Foundation ($300,000), ³⁶ Tortuga Foundation ($250,000), ³⁷ Resources Legacy Fund ($250,000), ³⁸ and Warsh Mott Legacy ($180,000), ³⁹

Leadership

Staff and board members of the Center for International Environmental Law have been affiliated with other left-leaning climate policy nonprofits.

Carroll Muffett

As of March 2024, Carroll Muffett was the president and CEO of CIEL. He was previously employed with Greenpeace and Defenders of Wildlife. ⁹

Samantha Atukunda

As of March 2024, Samantha Atukunda was a member of the CIEL board of trustees. She was also the director and legal counsel for Greenwatch Uganda. ^{11 12}

Yvette Arellano

As of March 2024, Yvette Arellano was a member of the CIEL board of trustees. Arellano was also a policy research and grassroots advocate for Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services. ¹⁰

Sharon Y. Eubanks

As of March 2024, Sharon Y. Eubanks was a member of the CIEL board of trustees. Eubanks was also chief counsel at the National Whistleblower Center (NWC). ¹⁴

David Hunter

As of March 2024, David Hunter was a member of the CIEL board of trustees. Hunter has also served on boards for Accountability Counsel, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), and the Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide. ¹³

Conniel Malek

As of March 2024, Conniel Malek was a member of the CIEL board of trustees. Malek was the executive director of the True Costs Initiative and also a board member with the Edge Funders Alliance. ^{40 41}

–