Today, both climate action and equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) are increasingly under attack. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the United States, where the Trump administration is leading a concerted effort to obstruct climate action and penalize EDI.
A federal judge recently granted an injunction blocking U.S. government officials from terminating or changing federal contracts they consider equity-related.
The injunction comes just over a month after President Donald Trump signed executive orders that end federal government support for programs promoting EDI. The judge found the executive orders could likely violate the U.S. Constitution and free-speech rights.
In Canada, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has blamed carbon pricing for driving up prices, despite research showing that it has a minimal impact on inflation. Meanwhile, provincial governments in Alberta and Saskatchewan are pursuing punitive anti-transgender agendas and some universities are moving away from EDI, claiming it promotes exclusion.
Until recently, governments, universities and corporations faced criticism for their lack of meaningful commitments on EDI and the climate. Many responded with ambitious pledges but insufficient action. This led to greenwashing and diversity-washing, symbolic commitments that mask inaction.
Hypocrisies in climate and EDI policies have become easy targets for right-wing populists. As a result, EDI and climate action are being scapegoated for broader systemic failures. For instance, the most deadly American plane crash in two decades has been baselessly linked to EDI, rather than clear evidence of systemic failures.
There are good reasons to challenge greenwashing and diversity-washing. Yet, denigrating climate and DEI actions wholesale avoids tackling the roots of complex problems and can have dangerous outcomes.
Why we need meaningful EDI in climate action
Climate policies that ignore social justice deepen exclusion, weaken public buy-in and provoke backlash. A just energy transition requires policies that resonate with marginalized communities and with those who feel threatened by change. Without this, opposition will only grow.
We recently published a journal article, co-authored with researchers Neelakshi Joshi and Georgia Savvidou, outlining how greenwashing, diversity-washing and the backlash against EDI all undermine effective climate action. We argue that we cannot address environmental challenges without confronting class, gender and racial inequities.
EDI is rooted in historical social movements that fought against exclusion. Established rights — like maternity leave, anti-discrimination in the workplace and marriage equality — are all products of these movements.
Over the past decade, movements like #MeToo, Black Lives Matter and Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls have advanced our understanding of systemic discrimination. EDI efforts have aimed to make institutions more representative and reduce inequalities in workplaces and society.
EDI in climate action has also gained traction, particularly through the push for a “just transition.” This movement seeks to restructure energy systems fairly and inclusively, ensuring no one is left behind.
Energy systems are deeply inequitable. Who profits, who has access and who shapes energy policy is highly uneven. Meaningful EDI that redistributes these benefits is essential. This includes the need to support workers in fossil fuel industries and the most vulnerable to climate impacts.
Ironically, political leaders who oppose EDI on merit grounds appoint key figures with no expertise. They ignore that diversity expands merit, not lowers it — EDI removes barriers, not standards.
Meaningful EDI in energy transitions
In our journal article we outline how public and private leaders make bold promises without transformative action, leading to greenwashing and diversity-washing.
Insufficient and superficial efforts can hinder systemic change. In the energy sector, simply prioritizing boardroom and workforce diversity does not necessarily guarantee fairer working conditions or tangible benefits for local communities.
We must move beyond empty greenwashing and diversity-washing rhetoric towards actions that target the needs of diverse populations where they live and work.
For example, community-led clean energy projects enable citizens to actively participate in energy transitions. Indigenous-led renewable energy ownership facilitates Indigenous sovereignty. Community organizations like Empower Me address the energy poverty faced by newcomers, immigrants, single mothers, seniors and others.
These examples demonstrate that more diverse perspectives are needed not to pursue EDI for its own sake, but to transform energy systems in real ways for more people.
When diverse experiences are not taken into account, our energy and climate decisions are prone to blind-spots and groupthink. This locks us further into existing practices, rather than opening up innovative and transformative paths.
We must reconnect with reality and not hide in fantasies that reject natural and social science alike. When EDI is obstructed, we cannot make effective progress on the climate crisis. We lose opportunities to discuss the injustices that are baked into energy systems — discussions that can lead to tailored and targeted policies relevant to the everyone’s needs.
This means heating, cooling and transport options that work for people of all backgrounds, income and ability levels, and initiatives that suit rural and remote communities as well as urban residents.
In turbulent times, the world needs more meaningful EDI, not less.
Sarah E. Sharma receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Department of National Defence's Mobilizing Insights in Defence and Security (MINDS) program.
Amy Janzwood receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Julie MacArthur receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Runa Das receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
