In September 2024, NCRP’s Senior Movement Engagement Manager for Climate Change Senowa Mize-Fox and NCRP’s Research and Development Associate Spencer Ozer attended New York City Climate Week. Climate Week is a series of events sponsored by The Climate Group that aims to bring together actors from all different sectors with a shared vision of tackling the complicated and multifaceted issues of the climate crisis. In this special 2-Part blog post, you will hear from Ozer and Mize-Fox as they recount their key takeaways from their time at Climate Week 2024. This is part 2 of 2.
The buzz around this year’s Climate Week was palpable, showcasing one of the largest turnouts in the event’s history. People from all over the world attended in an attempt to spread the message of climate mitigation and try to learn what can be done to save our planet. This year was my first Climate Week and the enthusiasm of everyone present could not be missed. I was shocked by the variety of lectures, panels, presentations, and other events that were being held throughout the week. Still, despite the vast number of talks and diversity of the attendees, there were some glaring shortcomings present throughout the week.
Beneath the excitement, familiar dynamics persisted. To me, it felt as if there were two very different conferences happening at the same time, one conference for funders, the other for movement groups. Movement-led events during Climate Week centered around advancing the principles of a just transition. These discussions are built on existing community-led solutions, focusing on equity, justice, and sustainability. They emphasized the importance of leveraging local knowledge and ensuring that the transition to a low-carbon economy prioritizes those most affected by climate change.
In contrast, funder-led events leaned heavily on technocratic approaches, with much of the focus on new technologies and innovative possibilities. These discussions often carried a sense of excitement about the potential for breakthroughs but were less rooted in the lived experiences of frontline communities. Despite the richness of ideas on both sides, the events often felt siloed, with limited interaction between movement groups and funders. Attendees tended to stick to events within their respective circles, creating an echo chamber effect where conversations seemed to “preach to the choir.” The lack of audience crossover underscored a persistent gap: How can we foster more meaningful exchanges between funders and movement groups to align strategies and amplify impact?