When people talk about CEO salaries, there's frequently a lot of talk, almost always from the left, about excessive compensation. There's a lot of just plain old envy in a lot of these conversations, very often focused on the (accurate) claim that a CEO's compensation may be 1,000 times that of a guy turning a wrench out on the shop floor. That's a canard, of course; people who can turn a wrench are common, but someone with the skills, personality, brains, and drive to head up a major business enterprise successfully is pretty thin on the ground. So, then, they command higher compensation.
Supply and demand applies here, as in anything. But note that it's almost always the left that complains about what they describe as excessive corporate compensation.
But then, let's put that shoe on the other foot. Environmental activist groups are generally staffed and managed by the left, the left supports them, and they hold the favor of the left - including those lefty supporters not seemingly too worried about the healthy salaries the leaders of those groups rake in.
Let's look at some of those compensation packages.
The bosses of the Environmental Defense Fund, World Wildlife Fund and National Audubon Society are the top-earning executives among major environmental and conservation groups, according to the most recent tax filings.
Carter Roberts and Fred Krupp, the leaders of WWF and EDF, respectively, both earned more than $1 million in total compensation, according to the latest publicly available tax records, ranking them among the best-paid leaders in the environmental movement.
Nonprofits are required to release their tax documents publicly, although their disclosure often lags by several years. The nonprofits’ most recent publicly available documents detail senior employees’ pay for calendar or tax years in 2023 or 2024.
Audubon CEO Elizabeth Gray and The Nature Conservancy’s CEO Jennifer Morris weren’t far behind, each earning compensation topping $900,000 in the most recent filings.
These are people making around or over a million annually. That's a lot of money for protecting the environment that many of these people and their supporters rarely see. It's a lot more than most of us who live out in "the environment" typically make.
Here are a few more tidbits from that compilation:
Ebony Twilley Martin, former executive director, Greenpeace
Martin left her job at Greenpeace in 2024 as the organization faced internal divisions over its response to a lengthy and expensive lawsuit filed by an oil company. Her total compensation was $875,670, according to the group’s 2024 tax filing. That included base pay of $241,749 in addition to a settlement and other benefits.
Greenpeace has been on the front lines of annoying the productive for quite a few years. A former CEO of Greenpeace Canada, Patrick Moore, resigned from and disavowed Greenpeace for what he described as scare tactics and disinformation over climate change. But that apparently hasn't prevented Greenpeace from handing out some generous compensation.
Jamie Rappaport Clark, former president and CEO, Defenders of Wildlife
Clark, who led the conservation group from 2011 until 2024, received $861,062 in total compensation, according to the group’s 2024 filing. That included $208,750 in bonus and incentive compensation.
So, not only generous compensation, but longevity, to boot; Jamie Rappaport Clark (no relation!) has made quite the career out of all this; almost a million a year, for 13 years? Wow. Maybe I'm in the wrong line of work.
Adam Putnam, CEO, Ducks Unlimited
The former Florida Republican congressman became CEO of the wildlife conservation group in 2019. His total compensation in the group’s 2023 filing was $598,074.
Now, this is an organization that my wife and I actually donate to every year. Ducks Unlimited isn't just supported by the left, and they do something none of these other groups do: They actually work to preserve and protect the wetlands that waterfowl depend on, and have done so to the tune of millions of acres. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, to which we also donate, does likewise for elk habitat. That's kind of a key difference; if you want to find an environmental group that actually does work in preserving habitat, find the sportsman's groups, every time.
Writing on this topic at the UK Daily Sceptic, author David Craig had this to say:
The other issue I noticed from briefly glancing at the list was how similar many of these organisations seemed. Some are so similar as their names are nearly identical. For example, Oceana claims to be “the largest international advocacy organisation focused solely on ocean conservation”. Oceana’s mission is apparently to protect and restore our oceans. But we also have Ocean Conservancy, which tells us that it is a US-based organization that works globally to protect the ocean. Ocean Conservancy proudly proclaims: “Together, we are securing a healthy ocean and a thriving planet.”
Well, of course. Every good grift tends to draw copycats. And there sure does seem to be a lot of "fleecing the rubes" going on here, and with a couple of exceptions, none of these groups actually go out and do anything for the environment. Many of them, I suspect, rarely even see "the environment" or, as those of us who live out in it call it, "the country."
Now, again, I have little issue with generous compensation for these relatively rare people who can successfully head up a major corporation or charitable organization. No, in this case, it's not the numbers that rankle; it's the hypocrisy. The left loves to rant about the salaries of CEOs of business enterprises, such as oil companies or automobile manufacturers. But when it's an "environmental" group that can't demonstrate anything done for the actual environment? Crickets.
Yup. When worn on the other foot, the shoe pinches.
