Why This Matters
Environmental organizations represent one of the most significant forces shaping environmental policy and public consciousness over the past 150 years. Understanding these groups isn't just about memorizing founding dates—you're being tested on how different strategic approaches (litigation, direct action, market-based solutions, land acquisition) reflect broader debates about how change happens in democratic societies. These organizations also illustrate key course themes like the tension between preservation and conservation, the evolution from local to global environmental thinking, and the role of science, law, and economics in environmental advocacy.
When you encounter these organizations on an exam, think about what each one reveals about its historical moment. Why did litigation-focused groups emerge in the 1970s? What does the shift toward market-based solutions tell us about changing political landscapes? Don't just memorize facts—know what strategy, era, and philosophy each organization represents.
Preservation and Conservation Pioneers
These organizations emerged during the Progressive Era and early conservation movement, when Americans first grappled with the idea that wilderness had intrinsic value worth protecting. Their longevity reflects how foundational their missions became to American environmentalism.
Sierra Club
- Founded in 1892 by John Muir—the oldest major environmental organization in the U.S., rooted in the preservation philosophy that wilderness has spiritual and aesthetic value beyond economic use
- Grassroots activism model pioneered the approach of mobilizing members for political campaigns, influencing everything from the creation of national parks to modern climate policy
- Public lands protection remains central to its mission, connecting 19th-century preservation ideals to contemporary fights over energy development and climate change
National Audubon Society
- Established in 1905 during the Progressive Era conservation movement, originally focused on stopping the slaughter of birds for the fashion industry's feather trade
- Bird conservation as ecosystem indicator—the organization's focus reflects the ecological principle that bird populations signal broader environmental health
- Education and citizen science approach distinguishes it from litigation-focused groups, emphasizing public engagement and habitat restoration over legal battles
Compare: Sierra Club vs. National Audubon Society—both Progressive Era organizations focused on protecting nature, but Sierra Club emphasized wilderness preservation while Audubon targeted species protection. If an FRQ asks about early conservation strategies, these two illustrate the preservation-conservation spectrum.
Science-Based Conservation Organizations
These groups prioritize research, data-driven strategies, and partnerships over confrontation. They reflect a professionalized approach to environmentalism that emerged mid-century, emphasizing expertise and collaboration with existing power structures.
The Nature Conservancy
- Founded in 1951, pioneered the strategy of direct land acquisition—buying ecologically significant areas rather than lobbying for government protection
- Science-driven prioritization uses biodiversity data to identify conservation targets, representing the influence of ecology as a discipline on environmental strategy
- Partnership model with governments, corporations, and local communities reflects a pragmatic, non-confrontational approach that distinguishes it from activist organizations
World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
- Established in 1961 as one of the first truly global conservation organizations, reflecting post-WWII internationalism and growing awareness of worldwide environmental threats
- Endangered species focus connects charismatic megafauna (pandas, tigers, elephants) to broader habitat and ecosystem protection—a strategic framing that builds public support
- Sustainable development emphasis in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries shows the organization's evolution from pure preservation toward balancing human needs with conservation
Conservation International
- Founded in 1987, represents the biodiversity hotspots approach—concentrating resources on areas with the highest species diversity and greatest threat
- Ecosystem services framework emphasizes protecting nature "for the benefit of humanity," reflecting economic arguments that natural systems provide quantifiable value
- Global partnerships with governments and corporations to address climate change illustrate the professionalized, collaborative model of late 20th-century environmentalism
Compare: The Nature Conservancy vs. WWF—both use science-based approaches, but TNC focuses on land acquisition (primarily in the U.S.) while WWF emphasizes international species and habitat protection. This distinction reflects different theories about where conservation dollars have the most impact.
Legal and Policy Advocacy Organizations
The environmental law movement exploded after 1970, when landmark legislation like NEPA, the Clean Air Act, and Clean Water Act created new legal tools for environmental protection. These organizations use litigation and policy expertise to enforce and expand environmental law.
Environmental Defense Fund
- Founded in 1967, originally to fight DDT—the lawsuit that led to the pesticide's ban established the model of using science and law together to force regulatory action
- Market-based solutions distinguish EDF from other advocacy groups; it pioneered cap-and-trade approaches and corporate partnerships, reflecting faith in economic incentives
- Interdisciplinary approach combining science, economics, and law represents a professionalized strategy that works within existing systems rather than challenging them
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
- Established in 1970, the same year as Earth Day and the EPA—its founding reflects the explosion of environmental consciousness and new legal frameworks
- Litigation as primary strategy uses courts to enforce environmental laws, representing the belief that legal accountability drives policy implementation
- Environmental justice focus connects traditional conservation concerns to public health and equity, reflecting the movement's evolution beyond wilderness preservation
Earthjustice
- Founded in 1970 as the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, later becoming independent—represents the legal arm of the environmental movement
- Nonprofit environmental law model provides free legal representation, democratizing access to environmental litigation for communities and organizations
- Enforcement focus on clean air, clean water, and wildlife protection through courts illustrates how the 1970s regulatory framework created new avenues for environmental advocacy
Compare: Environmental Defense Fund vs. NRDC—both emerged from the 1970s legal revolution, but EDF emphasizes market-based solutions and corporate partnerships while NRDC focuses on litigation and regulatory enforcement. This split reflects ongoing debates about whether environmentalism should work with or against economic systems.
Direct Action and Grassroots Activism
These organizations prioritize public campaigns, protest, and grassroots mobilization over legal or market-based strategies. They reflect a more confrontational philosophy that systemic change requires public pressure and disruption.
Greenpeace
- Established in 1971 in Vancouver, originally to protest nuclear testing—the organization's founding reflects the influence of anti-war activism on environmental movements
- Direct action tactics like confronting whaling ships and scaling buildings made environmental issues visually dramatic and media-friendly, pioneering modern protest strategies
- International scope and focus on global issues (climate, oceans, forests) reflects the emergence of transnational environmental consciousness in the 1970s
Friends of the Earth
- Founded in 1969 by David Brower after he left the Sierra Club over disagreements about strategy—represents a more radical, uncompromising approach to environmentalism
- Environmental justice framework explicitly connects ecological issues to social and economic inequality, broadening the movement's scope beyond wilderness preservation
- Decentralized international network operates in over 70 countries, allowing local adaptation while maintaining global coordination on climate and biodiversity campaigns
Compare: Greenpeace vs. Friends of the Earth—both use grassroots activism and operate internationally, but Greenpeace emphasizes dramatic direct action while Friends of the Earth focuses on policy campaigns and environmental justice. Both emerged from late 1960s radicalism but developed distinct tactical identities.
Quick Reference Table
|
| Progressive Era Conservation | Sierra Club, National Audubon Society |
| Science-Based/Partnership Model | The Nature Conservancy, WWF, Conservation International |
| Legal/Litigation Strategy | Earthjustice, NRDC, Environmental Defense Fund |
| Direct Action/Grassroots | Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth |
| Market-Based Solutions | Environmental Defense Fund |
| Land Acquisition Strategy | The Nature Conservancy |
| International/Global Focus | WWF, Greenpeace, Conservation International, Friends of the Earth |
| Environmental Justice | NRDC, Friends of the Earth |
Self-Check Questions
-
Which two organizations emerged from the Progressive Era conservation movement, and how did their approaches to protecting nature differ?
-
Compare the strategies of The Nature Conservancy and Greenpeace. What does each organization's approach reveal about different theories of how environmental change happens?
-
Why did so many environmental law organizations (EDF, NRDC, Earthjustice) emerge around 1970? What historical context explains this timing?
-
If an FRQ asked you to evaluate the effectiveness of market-based versus litigation-based approaches to environmental protection, which organizations would you use as examples, and what arguments would you make for each?
-
How does Friends of the Earth's environmental justice framework represent an evolution from earlier conservation organizations like the Sierra Club? What new constituencies and concerns does this approach include?