In just four years, The Carmack Collective has established itself as one of the boldest philanthropic actors in the climate space. To support movement building and cultural change, Carmack invests in a range of media activities, from investigative journalism to comedy, animation, and gaming. Throughout this work, they remain committed to trust-based philanthropy and a belief in the power of storytelling to challenge assumptions about fossil fuel and climate change.
In this Member Spotlight Q&A, Carmack’s Founder and Executive Director Jessie Bluedorn and Director Ricky Benavidez share how Carmack is countering industry disinformation, rethinking philanthropy’s role in narrative change, and building a pipeline of creative projects designed to shift culture at scale.
Nina Sachdev: I don’t think we can talk about Carmack’s mission of combatting and dismantling the fossil fuel industry without talking about the persistent narratives that the industry uses to maintain its power. Fossil fuel companies have invested heavily in shaping public perception for decades. How is Carmack thinking about countering them through media and storytelling?
Jessie Bluedorn: One of the most prolific and harmful false narratives is that fossil fuels are essential and therefore good. For example, we see this narrative pushed by industry via numerous TV ads depicting a world without fossil fuels as a world without medical care, a world without transportation, a world without makeup. These narratives present a false framing (if you don’t support fossil fuels, then you don’t support medical care for those in need). Given how prevalent this messaging is in the zeitgeist, our strategy is to support a wave of more truthful storytelling – storytelling that frames fossil fuels and the fossil fuel industry as an obstacle to a better future, rather than a pathway. This cultural shift opens up space in the collective consciousness for the abundant climate solutions that already exist.
Nina: Your support for media is wide-ranging: investigative journalism, comedy, animation, to name a few. And your theory of change with media funding is to move away from “doom and gloom” narratives. What kinds of stories or formats do you think resonate most with audiences today?
Jessie: I think stories that clearly identify perpetrators of harm and injustice (ex. the fossil fuel industry) are really resonating with audiences today. These types of stories both validate the struggles of our time which we all feel every day, and include a clear call to action rather than a surrender to nihilism.
Nina: What opportunities do you see in funding cultural projects such as comedy and entertainment alongside more traditional journalism?
Ricky Benavidez: This has been quite the learning experience for us. We see the most vast opportunity in reaching new audiences through funding what philanthropy might call “non-traditional” media. Karla Reyes from Anima Interactive quoted a stat earlier this year that over 3 billion people play video games globally. That’s billion with a B! If we can work climate narratives into these games and reach that many more people, just think of the change that can occur. We also know comedy allows us to let our guard down and laughter creates community. If we can joke about this very serious topic maybe we can lower the barrier to understanding and interest. When the everyday person hears constantly the doom and gloom of it all, the stats, and hears the scientists talking about degrees celsius, that immediately creates a distance between the lived reality of the climate crisis and the person receiving the information. Cultural projects such as comedy and entertainment help to close that gap by allowing folks to see themselves and their experiences represented in the messaging.
Nina: Carmack is in its fourth year now. And it has already reorganized its initial grant programs to better align with the needs of grantees and the movement, placing trust, flexibility and experimentation at the center of its approach. What did you learn in these early years?
Ricky: We knew from the outset that we wanted to shift the way that philanthropy responds to the needs of grantees. Trust-based approaches, transparency, and lowering and, where possible, eliminating barriers in application and reporting requirements have been core to our work since day one. We also knew that movement building wasn’t enough. To escape the cycle of investing deeply in movement just for those hard-fought wins to be pulled back the culture surrounding the work – the way we talk about climate, whose stories are being told, who is consuming those stories – needed to shift as well. We took those guides and had an open call for applications in our first year – this was before our focus on the fossil fuel industry. This move was intentional and a bit overwhelming, but we knew that we had to listen to the field to learn where their needs were and what areas of focus would be most salient for Carmack to invest in. Ultimately, through hundreds of applications and many conversations, we gathered what the field was telling us, that the solutions were there and so were the roadblocks. We compared that against our assets to see where we thought we could be the most effective, and landed on the notion that our work would be best served helping to remove the largest roadblock of all, the deeply entrenched fossil fuel industry. These learning also helped to shape a portfolio that is mostly based in the US; the seat of power of the fossil fuel industry. That being said, we also maintain support for those fighting against industry in other places (ex: one of our grantees, Mothers Rise Up, does a lot of movement work raising awareness of the role of insurance companies in supporting and furthering the work of the fossil fuel industry).
Nina: How do your two areas of grantmaking—movement building and cultural change—reinforce each other in practice?
Ricky: Movement cannot exist in vacuum. There are so many organizations and organizers doing amazing work that doesn’t get the attention or the momentum that they need to sustain change. People, for eternity, commune and engage most deeply with story. We saw from the very beginning that shifting the culture around climate change and climate narratives would undergird and elevate the work of movement, and that it is the story of movement and the lessons learned that are the stories that need to be told. I cannot imagine one without the other and I think that really shows in the portfolio of grantees that we have built and continue to build.
Nina: Trust-based philanthropy is central to your model, with minimal funding restrictions and grant reporting. What has that approach unlocked for your media and journalism grantees?
Jessie: First and foremost, this approach gives our grantees more time to do the work that they, as experts on their own projects, know to be most effective. I think we’ve also seen it lead to more collaborative and creative relationships with grantee partners because we’re clear from the start that we want to provide support however needed, whether that’s one of our team joining a project as an Executive Producer, connecting them with other funding sources, etc.
Nina: Looking ahead, what do you see as the biggest gaps or opportunities for funders who want to support media and journalism in the climate space?
Ricky: We know that a single podcast or film won’t shift culture on its own. But when podcasts, games, comedy, and film are funded together, they create a reinforcing ecosystem that multiplies impact. Traditional philanthropy often wants a clear ROI, they want to be able to count the widget. We know that movements can’t afford to wait for proof points. Narrative change requires risk capital, and funders who step up early can unlock breakthroughs that wouldn’t happen otherwise. We also know that no single funder can scale this work alone. By coordinating across philanthropy, we can create a steady pipeline of creative projects, helping them grow from seed ideas into culture-shifting forces.
Nina: What kind of work do you want to be doing with other funders?
Jessie: We’re really excited to do strategic collaborative funding with others in this space. The Carmack Collective serves primarily as a catalytic funder of emergent projects, so we see a huge opportunity to work with larger partners (both philanthropic and media) to create a more intentional funding pipeline. For example, what would it look like for us to be able to introduce grantees ready for scaled funding to specific partners, or even for partners to be able to refer “riskier” early stage projects to us?
