Tom Kaplan’s – Tom Kaplan raised nearly $18 million by auctioning a Rembrandt drawing of a lion, saying the proceeds would be donated to Panthera, a conservation group he co-founded. But in a separate one-on-one interview, Kaplan dismissed questions about whether his mining
A Rembrandt lion sold for nearly $18 million at Sotheby’s in New York City earlier this year, and the bidder—billionaire investor and philanthropist Tom Kaplan—planned to turn the proceeds toward conservation.
The press release before the auction said Kaplan would donate the sale’s proceeds to Panthera. an environmental organization he co-founded that conserves wild cats such as lions and jaguars. On its face. it sounded like a win for nature: Kaplan. described as the owner of the world’s largest private collection of Rembrandts. was redeploying wealth that might otherwise have remained locked away to support threatened wildlife and habitats across the globe. when environmental causes are facing a massive funding shortfall.
But the conversation that followed was not the straightforward feel-good story Kaplan’s public relations pitch suggested.
In early February, Kaplan’s critics and supporters watched from a different angle as the auction played out. A reporter and colleague. Sara Herschander. attended the Sotheby’s event in early February and then spoke one-on-one with Kaplan the following week. The reporter expected a direct discussion of philanthropy—framed through his donation—and instead left the call with a sharper. more complicated picture of how big money thinks about environmental responsibility.
Kaplan. according to what he shared. became a billionaire through exploring for. mining. and investing in natural resources. including silver. gold. and natural gas. He remains active in metals mining. He is the founder and chair of The Electrum Group. an investment firm focused on mining precious metals. and he is the chair of the gold mining company NovaGold Resources. which is developing a mine in Alaska that it expects will be the largest single gold mine in the US.
Kaplan told the reporter that wildlife conservation—and big cats in particular—was his primary passion through Panthera, the organization he co-founded. The reporter asked Kaplan whether his environmental philanthropy was, in any way, meant as a counterweight to the impact of his industry.
Kaplan did not engage with the question as framed. Over Zoom from a car, he told the reporter, “You know, people don’t ask me these questions. First of all. I’m not going to spend time on educating you about why mining has a very. very tiny footprint when you compare it to agriculture and climate change. Everyone knows that if it’s a choice between my business and Panthera, I’m always choosing Panthera. With all due respect, I’m busy, so do you have anything [else] that you’d like to discuss?”.
When the reporter pressed again—explaining that the public often perceives a tension between mining and conserving wildlife—Kaplan responded bluntly.
“You’re wrong,” Kaplan told Vox. “Please don’t make things up. When you say this is the public tension, with all due respect, it doesn’t exist. You’re making it up. It’s a very hack journalist thing to say. ‘How do you answer. you know. the criticism of X. Y. and Z.’ I’ve never faced it. ever. nor should I have.”.
Kaplan then said, according to the reporter’s account, that mining has no detrimental impact on wild cats—an assertion the reporter said is disputed by four mining experts later interviewed.
Mining metals at scale. those experts and related descriptions say. can destroy habitat. leach chemicals into the environment. and accelerate threats such as deforestation that can in turn harm wildlife. including big cats. Panthera itself lists mining as a threat to at least two wild feline species: the flat-headed cat and the Andean cat. The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). described as a global authority on endangered species. lists “mining and quarrying” as a threat to 19 cat species. including jaguars. Andean cats. and tigers.
After the reporter asked Kaplan about the impact of his mining work, the conversation shifted. Kaplan told the reporter they could talk more about mining another time. But when the reporter reached out a week later to set it up, Kaplan declined. The reporter said Vox shared a detailed list of the reporting with Kaplan before publishing. and Kaplan declined to comment further.
The dispute is not framed as a claim that Kaplan’s mines are uniquely harmful within the broader extractive industry. The reporter said Kaplan appears to operate primarily in North America. meaning his mines are under a comparatively strict environmental regulatory regime. Still, the reporter points to an unavoidable fact: mining of any kind at scale can have real, documented environmental impacts.
The deeper tension. as the reporter tells it. is the contradiction between two long-running priorities—Kaplan’s decades of profiting from an industry experts say harms wild animals. and his decades of giving “tens of millions of dollars” to protect them—while rejecting any connection between the two.
A broader reckoning shows up in the numbers. The reporter cites a UN calculation that for every dollar spent to protect nature. more than $30 goes toward destroying it. largely driven by private industries such as energy. agriculture. and mining. With that imbalance, even generous gifts may not come close to addressing the scale of the problem.
There is also a familiar question in philanthropy: when the people writing large checks are often the same people making business decisions across industries that cause environmental harm, whether or not they acknowledge it, the giving can function more like a release valve than a remedy.
Kaplan is not alone. The reporter points to Jeff Bezos, Amazon founder, as a widely known example. Bezos has committed $10 billion to fighting climate change and protecting nature through his Bezos Earth Fund. His net worth is cited as about $275 billion as of the time of writing. Meanwhile. the report says Bezos’s companies produce a great deal of carbon and plastic pollution that fuels problems the Earth Fund is meant to address.
The reporter also describes MSC, the world’s largest shipping company, using philanthropy to restore coral reefs while its business produces more carbon emissions each year than a small European country, and carbon emissions are described as a leading threat to reefs.
Kjell Inge Røkke, billionaire chair behind Aker ASA—an investment firm focused in part on oil and gas exploration—is described as donating wealth to clean the ocean of plastic, while plastic is made from oil.
Stephen Prince, a multimillionaire who made his fortune from a gift-card printing company, is quoted in the reporter’s account. Prince is vice-chair of Patriotic Millionaires, a group of wealthy people calling for higher taxes on themselves. Prince told the reporter that as the wealthy get wealthier. they become “increasingly enshrouded in a bubble of protection that allows them to ignore reality.” He said he ditched his private jet in 2023 due to its environmental footprint.
Other philanthropy experts echoed that reluctance to confront tensions between the source of wealth and the goals of giving. Glen Galaich. author of the book Control: Why Big Giving Falls Short and executive director of the Stupski Foundation—rooted in the wealth of Larry Stupski. the former president and chief operating officer of Charles Schwab Corp—said. “What you’re describing is very. very common.”.
Jessie Bluedorn. a young philanthropist and environmental organizer. is quoted as arguing that philanthropists may focus heavily on what they give while downplaying what they take. Bluedorn funds climate justice organizations through her foundation. the Carmack Collective. and the reporter says she sees her philanthropy as wealth redistribution. “People need to be a bit more honest about the balance sheet of their contribution to our society,” Bluedorn said.
The reporter also includes a reminder that billionaires are not required to donate. A mining mogul, the piece notes, could mine without supporting philanthropic causes. It says from one perspective. longstanding in philanthropy. choosing wildlife conservation over increasing personal wealth can be generous—especially when donating proceeds from a beloved $18 million drawing.
At the same time, the reporter notes that public giving can draw criticism because it can open philanthropists to scrutiny that private hoarding avoids. It also says that while some donate for attention, those who keep wealth private do less good.
Tamara Toles O’Laughlin. CEO of the Environmental Grantmakers Association. is quoted: “the folks who are super interested in destroying everything aren’t philanthropists.” O’Laughlin’s organization is described as a network of over 200 private foundations. most funded by wealthy families. supporting environmental causes. She said many philanthropists are “breaking their backs to figure out how they can change their relationship to the money they got and what that money is going to do.”.
Yet the reporter argues environmental groups still face cash shortages. The piece cites the ClimateWorks Foundation’s estimate that in 2023 less than 2 percent of global philanthropy—described as a high-end estimate of $15.8 billion—went toward mitigating climate change. That is compared with $78 billion US higher education received the year before. The reporter also notes that the Trump administration has yanked “loads” of federal funds for conservation and climate groups. adding that government grants typically play a smaller role in many environmental nonprofit budgets compared with philanthropy.
Senowa Mize-Fox. a climate justice organizer at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. is quoted as criticizing donors who give to climate-related causes without addressing their own environmental records. Mize-Fox said. “These billionaires are so self-absorbed. and so far removed from the reality of the majority of people on this planet. that they think that…giving that money away is going to solve everything. ” adding. “It’s not. It will not. It never will.”.
The report adds a twist: even Mize-Fox has accepted money from imperfect donors. In an earlier job. she said the organizations she worked with had received a big grant opportunity from Bezos Earth Fund. “It is all blood money. and the faster that we can divest from the billionaires and reinvest that money into frontline solutions is what matters to me. ” Mize-Fox said. noting most wealth is tied to exploitation whether it was “last year or 100 years ago.”.
The piece then asks whether it truly matters where the money comes from if it is put to good use. It describes a new generation of climate advocates and some philanthropists themselves as starting to think so.
A “slow reckoning,” the reporter writes, is underway as billionaire donors and foundations begin to grapple more explicitly with the source of their wealth and the harm it has caused, with help from donor advocacy groups like Patriotic Millionaires and Resource Generation.
The Rockefeller Brothers Fund is described as a clear example. In 2014, the fund pledged to divest its endowment from fossil fuels such as coal and tar sands, aiming to align its investment practices with climate justice efforts supported since the 1990s.
In 2020, the Rockefeller Foundation—described as much larger—decided to untangle its endowment from fossil fuels. The reporter says the foundation’s statement was informed by its origins: the foundation is described as founded from a $100 million cut from John D. Rockefeller’s fortune, worth about $3.3 billion in today’s dollars. Chan Lai. the Rockefeller Foundation’s chief investment officer. is quoted as saying. in a statement. “The weight of this legacy is not lost on us.” He said the divestment was “in part a form of accountability. ” referencing the source of the Rockefellers’ fortune.
The report also says other major foundations moved toward divestment after the murder of George Floyd in 2020, as protests pushed grantmakers to acknowledge the “damaging roots” of wealth, fund more climate justice work led by people of color, and align endowments with their charitable missions.
Some living billionaires have made similar changes. The reporter says California gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer has spoken publicly about pivoting from investing in fossil fuels to funding climate solutions. Steyer is quoted describing how he changed: “I went from being somebody who was blithely investing in everything in the economy to. ‘No. no. no. no. that’s not okay. ’” and he said he needs to leave billions of dollars on the table so his investing is “actually doing the right thing.”.
The report also mentions Nicky Oppenheimer, described as Africa’s fourth-richest person and heir to the De Beers diamond fortune. It says Oppenheimer sold a $5.1 billion stake in his family’s holding more than a decade ago and has since invested heavily in wildlife conservation.
Still, the reporter returns to the central question raised by Kaplan’s call: can environmental philanthropy do enough when the larger system continues to generate harm?
The piece cites a UN report estimating that for roughly $220 billion spent to save nature in 2023, more than $7 trillion went to activities that destroy it, including subsidies for fossil fuels.
The reporter argues environmental philanthropy does not come close to balancing that scale, especially if it does nothing to shrink the larger half. It uses an analogy comparing well-intentioned giving to mopping an overflowing bathtub without turning off the faucet.
Finally, the report brings the story back to the tension at the center of Kaplan’s lion auction. It suggests harmful industries have to change how they do business. redirecting financial flows that dwarf philanthropy toward less harmful activities—from mining coal to building solar panels. from cutting trees for cattle to investing in plant-based protein.
Galaich is quoted again, saying US foundations give away a total of $100 billion a year, while the problems at stake involve “multitrillion-dollar” needs.
The report also cites a statement from Bezos, who in an interview with CNBC is quoted saying, “If I do my job right, the value to society and civilization from my for-profit companies will be much, much larger than the good that I do with my charitable giving.”
The reporter notes that it is possible some companies Kaplan has invested in are trying to reduce harm. pointing to the gold company he chairs and its page dedicated to environmental efforts—an answer the reporter says was planned for a follow-up conversation. though Kaplan’s openness to contradictions remained a question.
In the end, the reporter writes that it is hard to see how any industry stops creating environmental problems if even its leaders most passionate about the environment—so passionate they give away prized possessions—do not first acknowledge the harms exist.
Tom Kaplan Panthera Rembrandt lion auction Sotheby’s mining and conservation wildlife philanthropy wild cats IUCN environmental funding billionaires