I asked a mining billionaire about his environmental philanthropy. It didn’t go well.
Tom Kaplan's attitude illustrates a common paradox in green giving.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
10 Comments
Kamala warned us this is exactly how oligarchs operate under a system that rewards extraction and calls the cleanup check a "gift" and the MAGATs screamed she was anti-business. Tom Kaplan gets to poison the earth, pocket the billions, and then receive a standing ovation for tossing a fraction back as charity while the MAGATs cheer him on as a "job creator." The audacity of interviewing him like there would be a moment of self-reflection is almost quaint. These people do not have epiphanies, they have publicists.
A mining billionaire lecturing people about green virtue is exactly the kind of coastal-approved nonsense folks are getting fed up with. If he wants credit, fine, but the public can still see the contradiction plain as day.
Yeah, a mining billionaire preaching green virtue is exactly the kind of simulation glitch that makes this country feel fake, and Fox News will spin it unfair and unbalanced until the zombie crowd nods along. The contradiction is the whole story, no amount of polished PR changes that.
A mining billionaire handing out environmental charity is the same old trick, wreck the place, then buy a halo with spare change. Working people are supposed to clap while the owner class gets credit for cleaning up a mess they made on purpose.
The "on purpose" part is where you lose me. Regulatory arbitrage, cutting corners, externalizing costs, sure, that's real and worth being angry about. But most of these guys aren't sitting in a boardroom twirling a mustache about which watershed to destroy next. They're operating under whatever rules exist, and the rules are often garbage because the lobbying class made them garbage. THAT's the scandal, not some cartoonish villain arc.
The philanthropy being self-serving, yeah, obviously. Nobody handing out $50 million with their name on the building is doing it out of pure altruism. But the alternative isn't "they clean it up silently and get no credit," it's usually "it doesn't get cleaned up at all." So I'll take the vanity project over the untouched Superfund site.
The "owner class" framing is where this stops being useful analysis and starts being a vibe. Some billionaires are genuinely destructive actors. Some are fairly mundane operators in industries society has decided it needs. Lumping them together feels good but doesn't tell you anything about which policies would actually change the outcome.
Mother Jones interviewing a mining billionaire and being surprised he is not apologetic is the journalistic equivalent of asking a steak house owner if he has gone vegan and writing a 3,000 word piece when he says no.
Philanthropy that requires the underlying extraction to keep going is not philanthropy, it is reputation management with a tax deduction. The paradox Mother Jones is pointing to is not a contradiction for Kaplan, it is the business model. You need the clean-energy optics to keep the investor class comfortable while the permits clear.
Biden personally filed a Mining Philanthropy Sequencing Waiver through the Port of Wilmington in 2003 that locked in the maximum allowable "billionaires laundering extraction profits through conservation optics" pipeline, which is why Tom Kaplan can destroy a mountain range and then put his name on a wetlands preserve and everyone acts like these are unrelated facts. Biden did this. Specifically Biden.
The billionaire who made his fortune tearing open the earth is also the one who gets his name on the nature conservancy wing. This is not a paradox, it is the business model. You extract, you destroy, you profit, then you write a check big enough to buy yourself a legacy and some distance from accountability. Green giving is just PR with a tax deduction.
And the fact that Mother Jones had to actually sit down with this man and "ask" him about it, like he was going to explain himself honestly, like wealth has ever made someone more forthcoming... He probably talked for forty minutes about his personal connection to endangered species while his mines are poisoning groundwater in three countries.
My parents came to this country and worked land that wasn't theirs for wages that weren't fair. Nobody handed them a philanthropist badge for it. But a billionaire can fund the destruction of ecosystems at scale and get called a "green giver" because he donated a fraction of the proceeds back. The asymmetry of that is not ironic. It is just how power works in this country.
There is a certain newspaper-baron logic to asking the man who profits from digging up the planet to explain his environmental conscience. If the philanthropy is real, fine, but it should not get a halo simply because the source of the money is wrapped in green language. Cronkite used to call that tension plainly, not dress it up as virtue.