SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
environmental justice
Climate Justice Is Under Siege; Help Us Defend It
Why we can’t afford to lose the progress frontline communities have built.
Aug 26, 2025
The climate justice infrastructure dedicated to serving vulnerable communities across the United States took decades to build. And it is now at risk.
After nearly 20 years working in frontline communities on environmental justice and community development, I joined Emerald Cities Collaborative as president and CEO in April 2022. Hope around renewed commitments to climate justice, community resilience, and economic opportunities was palpable, as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Inflation Reduction Act had just been signed into law shortly after my start. With an influx of federal investments and mandates for racial equity, the promise of that moment energized the climate justice and environmental justice movements.
Today, a coordinated attack on the environmental nonprofit sector and diversity, equity, and inclusion threatens to dismantle the physical and social support networks that serve frontline communities. It is imperative that we understand what’s at stake, who benefits from the current infrastructure, and what the consequences of inaction could be.
Climate justice infrastructure provides the framework for implementing equitable climate investments for all that advance racial justice, economic justice, and environmental justice. This infrastructure includes the physical investments—such as green buildings, solar panels, green infrastructure—and the social supports necessary to ensure their equitable implementation. From community organizing to capacity building for grassroots nonprofits and workforce development programs, environmental nonprofits serve as the backbone of this social infrastructure. These efforts address both climate change and the systemic inequality that leads to disproportionate impacts on vulnerable communities.
We must stand up for nonprofits and the future that they help build—a climate future that is not only green but just.
Significant public and private investments in greener, more resilient energy, water, food, and housing infrastructure—driven by the urgency of climate change—created an unprecedented opportunity to address the environmental, income, wealth, and health disparities within low-income communities and communities of color. Realizing the full potential of these rapidly accelerating investments required a coordinated strategy that integrated local coalition building, policy, project, workforce, and small business development support. This is where the environmental nonprofits stepped in. Environmental nonprofits provided their expertise, on-the-ground leadership, capacity building, and connective tissue to support community-led climate projects, advocacy, and policy.
The breadth of organizations building this critical climate justice infrastructure is remarkable—from national nonprofits and statewide advocacy groups to grassroots organizations and volunteer community groups. We are grateful for their commitment! At Emerald Cities Collaborative (ECC), our history, experience, and dedication to climate justice, along with our support for coalitions and partnerships, equity-centered clean energy policies, and economic inclusion efforts, uniquely positioned us to serve as an intermediary within the broader ecosystem. ECC deployed a coordinated strategy of local coalition building, policy education, project implementation, workforce initiatives, and contractor development to connect disadvantaged communities nationally and in our primary regions (Northwest, Northern California, Southern California, DC-Maryland-Virginia, and Northeast) to the growing clean energy economy. We connected federal and state funding to grassroots implementation and translated new federal initiatives into community-accessible dialogue. The overarching goal was to ensure that the climate and economic benefits of the emerging clean economy were reachable to low-income communities and communities of color.
As a result of the efforts of national nonprofits, community-based organizations, and institutions, many organizations and communities historically left out were able to access federal funding for community climate investments, many for the first time. Communities that have borne the brunt of environmental injustice have benefited from stronger leadership, enhanced organizational capacity, and new tools for community education and organizing.
These gains are all at risk due to the growing attack on environmental nonprofits, the rollback of climate policies, and the disintegration of environmental justice funding. Legal and reputational attacks, such as naming Emerald Cities Collaborative in the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Exploring the Green Group Giveaway Behind the Biden-Harris Environmental Justice Programs report, demonstrate how politically motivated attacks are being used to sway public opinion. This, coupled with the outright illegal termination of environmental justice grants, has had a chilling effect on our work.
However, the impacts are not evenly distributed. Grassroots organizations and BIPOC-led nonprofits are disproportionately vulnerable to these attacks compared with large national organizations with greater resources and political capital. Fear and misinformation have caused some philanthropic funders to pull back. Organizations are being forced to divert resources from mission-critical work to legal defense and crisis communications. And this does not include the mental and emotional toll that environmental justice and climate justice leaders are experiencing.
The stakes are high. Without the valuable work of these organizations, climate solutions may revert to top-down, extractive models that center profit over community. The loss of high-road jobs, apprenticeships, and clean energy workforce programs, along with increased vulnerability to extreme climate events, will unduly affect frontline communities already facing the greatest risk. At the same time, the voices of Black, Indigenous, and immigrant-led movements are in danger of being systematically excluded from the climate conversation.
For us to meet our national climate goals and the just transition agenda, we need strong local, community-driven infrastructure. How can we ensure that the momentum for equitable climate investments in frontline communities is not entirely lost? Will we use this moment to accelerate climate justice—or allow fear and misinformation to dismantle it?
Now is the time for philanthropy, government, and the public to stand in solidarity with national and frontline organizations. Philanthropy must fund general operating support and legal protections for national BIPOC-led and frontline nonprofits. We must resist and roll back state-level attacks on nonprofit speech and operations, as well as the easing of climate policies. And we must educate audiences, donors, and lawmakers about the irreplaceable role of climate justice organizations.
The attack on climate justice infrastructure is about PEOPLE, PROGRESS, and PRINCIPLES! We must stand up for nonprofits and the future that they help build—a climate future that is not only green but just. We must stand up for communities that are resilient and thriving, not just surviving. The alternative is not an option.
Keep ReadingShow Less
TICAD in Yokohama: Reflecting on the Real Meaning of Development in Africa
The record in Mozambique shows that projects backed by public finance can harm communities and the environment unless local voices guide the process.
Aug 21, 2025
The ninth Tokyo International Conference on African Development, or TICAD, opened August 20 in Yokohama, organized by the Japanese government with the United Nations, UN Development Program, World Bank, and African Union Commission. Japan, as host, aims to promote “high quality” development in Africa by applying lessons from Asia. Three decades since TICAD’s launch in 1993, interest in Africa remains strong—and so does the need to reflect on what “development” truly means.
Japan’s record in Mozambique offers sobering lessons.
Before we can discuss “development” we must recognize that many of Africa’s deep crises today are rooted in the continued exploitation of its people and resources, shaped by inherited colonial structures. Public funding and transnational corporations play a large role in perpetuating these patterns.
The Mozambique liquefied natural gas (LNG) project illustrates the problem. Led by French energy giant TotalEnergies, it is one of Africa’s largest gas extraction projects, with Japan as its top financier. The publicly funded Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) has committed up to $3.5 billion in loans, while Nippon Export and Investment Insurance (NEXI) has agreed to provide $2 billion in insurance.
As leaders gather at TICAD to shape Africa’s future, we urge Japan and all participating governments and businesses to focus on the needs and aspirations of African people themselves.
JBIC justifies this support by citing growing global LNG demand, particularly in developing countries, rising environmental awareness, and Japan’s energy security. Yet revenue flows to a United Arab Emirates-based special purpose entity—enabling gas and mining companies to avoid paying an estimated $717 million to $1.48 billion in taxes to Mozambique. The country is further disadvantaged by the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system, which prioritizes loss compensation for investors.
On the ground, grievances remain unresolved. More than eight communities have been affected, and many families still await promised compensation. Others have lost farmland or access to the sea, undermining agriculture and fisheries livelihoods. Local residents report that consultation meetings often involve military presence, stifling open discussion.
Since 2017, the region has suffered violent insurgency, which halted the project in 2021 and brought heavy militarization focused on protecting gas infrastructure. Insurgent activity has surged again in recent weeks, amid signs of project restart. In March 2025, analysts warned that the sense of disenfranchisement created by the project could fuel insurgent recruitment.
Environmental and climate risks are also high. Independent reviews find that the project’s environmental impact assessment understates potential harm, including lacking a rigorous biodiversity baseline study for the deep-sea environment.
This pattern—external actors driving their own agendas rather than responding to locally defined and articulated priorities—is not unique.
A decade earlier, Japan’s own ProSAVANA project in northern Mozambique followed a similar path. Launched in the early 2010s by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) with Mozambican and Brazilian partners, it aimed to convert land to agricultural use, particularly soybean cultivation for export to Japan. Modeled on Brazil’s Cerrado “green revolution” of the 1970s, it was promoted as a way to promote agricultural and economic development in Mozambique.
In reality, the project facilitated land grabs covering 14 million hectares in the Nacala Corridor, displacing small farmers. Civil society groups denounced the opaque consultation process and backed local farmers’ resistance. After years of protest, the Japanese government ended its involvement in July 2020, belatedly acknowledging these concerns.
Both Mozambique LNG and ProSAVANA demonstrate how “development” promoted from the Global North can harm communities and the environment. When public finance is involved, the risks—and the responsibility—are even greater.
Better outcomes require meaningful, transparent consultation with affected communities, robust due diligence, and genuine accountability. Without these, development risks becoming extraction by another name.
As leaders gather at TICAD to shape Africa’s future, we urge Japan and all participating governments and businesses to focus on the needs and aspirations of African people themselves, and to avoid—or even redress—the mistakes of the past.
The question remains as urgent as ever: Who is this development really for?
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Misleading Allure of Plastic Credits
Government delegates negotiating a plastics treaty should resist the urge to incorporate quick fixes like plastic credits in the text, and instead should set ambitious, non-negotiable targets for plastic reduction and reuse.
Aug 14, 2025
The escalating global plastic pollution crisis demands urgent, decisive action, with plastic threatening ecosystems and human health.
Governments are convening at the second part of the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC 5.2) in Geneva, tasked with forging a historic, legally binding instrument to tackle plastic pollution across its entire life cycle—a mandate enshrined in the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) Resolution 5/14 three years ago.
Plastic credit schemes are increasingly discussed on the sidelines of the ongoing treaty negotiations—often presented under the umbrella of blended and innovative financing. Proponents argue that these schemes can potentially close the gap in countries with inadequate waste management infrastructure. Plastic credits have not explicitly made it in the most recent Chair’s Text at the ongoing INC 5.2 meeting, but they were mentioned in one of the expert group meetings in August 2024, as an innovative financing approach, with the potential to “incentivize companies to shift towards sustainable practices.”
Scientists have estimated that it would cost $18.3-158.4 trillion to support global actions toward zero waste pollution by 2040. According to the World Bank, income generated from plastic credits can potentially help close the funding gap for plastic waste management by 2040, amounting to about $240 billion annually. These benefits may sound enticing particularly with the urgency of securing funding to address plastic pollution, but in fact represent a dangerous distraction, risking greenwashing and diverting critical finance and political action.
The future of our planet depends on preventing plastic pollution at its source, not pursuing plastic credits to offset harm after it is done.
Plastic credits appear to be a win-win solution on paper—companies provide funding for waste collection initiatives to “offset” their plastic footprint. However, this approach mirrors the shortcomings of carbon offsetting, which has faced numerous problems, including “phantom credits,” lack of new emission reductions, and double counting. While a universal definition for plastic credits is still under development, organizations like PCX Solutions, Verra, BVRio, and the World Bank generally agree on this scheme as a results-based financing mechanism, which funds projects designed to tackle plastic pollution, primarily through collection and recycling efforts. Plastic credits have initially been introduced as voluntary schemes, in which businesses may purchase credits to “offset” their plastic footprint, or the amount of plastic they have produced, often done to enhance brand image, meet sustainability commitments, and fulfill corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives.
There are several countries that have incorporated plastic credits into their extended producer responsibility (EPR) policies, as a way for companies to achieve regulatory compliance. The Philippines, for example, mandates large corporations to gradually offset their plastic footprint, aiming for an 80% collection or recovery by 2028. This system permits plastic offsetting as an alternative to EPR fees, which are conceptually intended to fully cover plastic waste management costs—a burden often borne by municipalities. However, it remains uncertain whether existing EPR policies with plastic offsets fully cover the cost of managing plastic waste.
Experts have argued that plastic credit mechanisms lack a standardized accounting system, making it challenging to effectively measure credits from plastic offsetting projects and plastic footprints. They also found that plastic credits face difficulties in meeting critical offset criteria such as additionality, permanence, and the “no-harm” principle. It is difficult to prove that the plastic collected or recycled through a credit scheme would not have been managed anyway. A 2023 investigation into Verra’s databases, for instance, found that more than 80% of listed projects have been operational for more than a year before being listed on the registry platform, contradicting claims that these activities are unviable without funding from plastic credits.
There are also concerns about permanence, largely due to the challenges of achieving genuinely closed-loop recycling for plastic waste. The meager 9% global recycling rate for plastic highlights the challenges posed by its complex compositions and chemical additives, as well as the economic impracticality of such interventions. It is not surprising that many of these plastic credit projects involve burning collected plastic waste in cement kilns.
Experts have warned that current credit prices are too volatile to provide sustainable funding for waste management. SourceMaterial uncovered a significant price disparity within a registry platform: Plastic credits linked to co-processing treatment in cement kilns are available for as little as $115 per credit, whereas credits from community-based collection projects can cost up to $630. Using the Philippines EPR case, the price disparity suggests that companies may opt for the cheapest credits derived from burning for regulatory compliance, rather than pursuing plastic reduction measures.
Plastic credits are fundamentally flawed and risk becoming a costly diversion from meaningful action. Government delegates attending the INC 5.2 meeting should resist the urge to incorporate quick fixes like plastic credits in the treaty text, and instead should set ambitious, non-negotiable targets for plastic reduction and reuse, ensuring accountability across the entire plastic life cycle, as mandated under UNEA Resolution 5/14.
A strong, dedicated financial mechanism is essential for the treaty. Developed member states should fund a substantial portion of the contributions, in line with the principles of common but differentiated responsibilities and polluter pays. This will ensure that the health and environmental costs are internalized, and funds are available for remediation to protect human health, biodiversity, and the environment. Likewise, the financial mechanism should also direct investments toward initiatives focusing on plastic production caps and waste prevention, as well as the development and scale-up of safe, non-toxic, and accessible reuse and refill systems, rather than limiting to downstream interventions like recycling and waste management. Furthermore, it should support and facilitate a just transition for workers along the plastics life cycle, including waste pickers and other informal workers and workers in cooperative settings, Indigenous Peoples, and frontline or directly affected communities.
The future of our planet depends on preventing plastic pollution at its source, not pursuing plastic credits to offset harm after it is done. Real solutions begin with reduction, not compensation.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular