Thread by @jmijincha

I'm seeing more big orgs launching climate justice and/or just transition programs and while I think more people advocating for these issues is great, I have some serious concerns: 1/

For one, resources. Big orgs already suck up around 98% of all climate funding. Now that the field is moving more towards equity considerations, which again, is great, what happens to the small orgs that have been doing this work long before it became popular? 2/

Do the Big orgs suck up what is already a minuscule slice or do they shared resources and power? I think the @donorsofcolor Climate pledge is a great effort and will hopefully stop this from happening. But, also, the Big orgs could do their part and not suck up all the $$$ 3/

The second concern is expanding vs. replication. There are a ton of questions and research that needs to be done but a lot of what I'm seeing is just existing work being replicated. This indicates that there is some co-option happening rather than the field expanding 4/

Which brings me to my third concern on co-option. EJ groups have a different theory of change, which is why equity has also been central to the work. Now, tacking on equity is not in fact just. Similarly, just transition focused on continuing FF use is not JT 5/

So I am very concerned that there is equity-washing and just transition and climate justice is used to give cover to neoliberal policies, which is not only counter to what these terms mean but also will not stop the worst impacts of the climate crisis. 6/

There has been a lot of talk that the Big orgs are changing but until power and resources is shared, I am very skeptical. And, this recent push into the just transition and climate justice space is not helping my skepticism.

All of this to say that instead of starting new programs and initiatives, Big orgs should support existing work and orgs. The people that have been doing the work for years that have brought us to this point where equity is more mainstreamed should be the ones we support