Prairie meadow burning, by George Catlin, 1832
The other night I had dinner with a friend and her partner, and the partner asked me what I do for work.
I told him, careful to note that I work with companies working on climate change solutions, not climate solutions, a phrase that has caused confusion in the past. (”Oh, like HVAC?” Someone once asked me.)
Anyway, back to the dinner.
“It’s a funny space to be in at the moment,” I admitted. “It’s not really top of mind for most people.”
“Yeah,” he agreed. “I guess climate change was like, so seven years ago.”
I’m not sure quite what my face did in that moment, but safe to say I am still laughing about that reply.
Most days it feels like he’s right. Lately the climate industry feels like it’s just scraping by on the momentum it built up about, well… seven years ago.
If we look at the macro-attention cycles of the past few decades, we see:
A bump in 2006-2009 — Al Gore, the first clean tech boom, the failed 2009 COP
A bump in 2015 — Paris Agreement
A bump in 2019-2021 — Greta Thunberg, Australian bushfires, then the pandemic which, rather than distracting from other issues, ended up emphasising them
It’s 2026, so the last bump started…. seven years ago. Our friend was right. And this current moment feels like an even stronger downturn than usual given the intense political suppression of climate change thanks to You Know Who and his red-hat-wearing followers.
The disconnect between perception (climate change is not a focus right now) and reality (climate change is still a problem regardless of who’s focusing on it) drives people like us mad. But try as we might, no individual among us can bring the macro-attention cycle back around whenever we want it to. (Although, admittedly, Greta did a pretty good job of it.)
But what now? Do we simply wait for the next bump? Wait for climate change to re-emerge as the issue du jour?
Evidently not. Although we make significant headwinds when climate change takes centre stage (more widespread recognition, becoming more deeply embedded in the public consciousness), there are also downsides to a long-term wicked problem suddenly receiving a widespread burst of attention. For one thing, the modern information environment means that there is no hot topic that is not also highly politicised and polarised. Not all press is good press for climate change. For another thing, people get bored easily — even (or maybe especially) of disaster talk.
Anthony Downs, the brains behind the Issue-Attention Cycle, says:
“…we should not underestimate the…public’s capacity to become bored – especially with something that does not immediately threaten them, or promise huge benefits for a majority, or strongly appeal to their sense of injustice.”
Beyond boredom, the real worry when an issue like climate change blows up in the mainstream consciousness is backlash. Cycles of hype are almost always followed by cycles of derision. We’re familiar with the fate of side parts, skinny jeans, and Facebook, but the same backlash has followed once-hyped topics like overpopulation, nuclear war, video game violence, and so on. The higher something rises, the further it can fall.
With all this in mind, the quiet downtime in the climate issue-attention cycle may not be such a bad thing after all. In fact, I’d argue they’re an opportunity in disguise: a chance to talk about the issue without all the hot-button press and politicisation. This is the kind of climate dialogue I personally prefer: measured, nuanced, not driven by the 24-hour news cycle. The down-cycle offers us the chance to talk about climate change in greater depth and with less overwhelm. We need these opportunities to have complicated conversations about long-term strategies. Climate change, after all, is going to affect each of us for the rest of our lives.
A few strategies for surviving downturns in the climate change issue-attention cycle:
Take strategic advantage of micro-attention spikes (COPs, protests, fires, heatwaves). These events create temporary increases in media coverage of climate issues: take advantage by offering thoughtful, longer takes; not hamming up an already urgent and distressing situation, but instead shining through as a calm voice with appropriate solutions.
Connect climate concerns to current media topics or business concerns. This has been done fairly well lately with AI and the Iran fuel crisis. Climate touches most things, so there’s always a way to chime in, provided you keep the discourse grounded.
Treat down-cycles as a chance to lay foundational knowledge, build up your brand or platform, and connect with journalists so that when something does strike, you’re the first port of call and already a trusted voice on the subject.
Avoid ‘too hot’ messaging by narrowing in on a particular topic and focusing on what can still be done. A down-cycle doesn’t mean you need to play up the drama just to draw attention. Nobody needs to be bummed out by despair right now.
Realise that we don’t have to exist in a constant macro-attention moment in order to progress the climate change conversation. The ideal outcome is to move out of the cycle altogether and have climate change, mitigation, and adaptation become daily topics of mainstream conversation. Maybe we’re heading there already, but either way, the ultimate goal is not really another upswing, but full integration into mainstream daily consciousness.
We don’t know when climate will re-emerge as the #1 hot-button issue, but we do know that it very likely will return at some point. It’ll probably do so in a huge way; hopefully not off the back of widespread disaster.
In the meantime, the best thing you can do is the same thing you’d be doing even in the upswing: keep getting the message out in ways that are grounded, nuanced, truthful, and actionable.
What we’re curious about this week
Woah! What a read. Funder is such a clean, sophisticated, restrained writer; this book is a joy to read. But more than that, it paints a complex and emotional portrait of East Germany under communist rule.
I’ve gotten myself into some hot water on LinkedIn lately by using words that apparently trigger the neoliberals into believing I’m advocating for full-blown communism when I am simply talking about decarbonisation. Some of these people really do just need to calm down, but reading books like Stasiland gives me a deeper appreciation for why phrases like a more capable government or collective action might cause such fear among some crowds.
As the progressive world searches for a new economic model, reading history is more important than ever.
📹 YouTube channel: Ryan Chapman
I’m still in a bit of a podcast desert of late, but what I have been enjoying is Ryan Chapman’s YouTube documentaries. I really appreciate his calm approach, simple visual style, and the depth of research and thinking required to present such complex topics so clearly.
I particularly enjoyed this video on Iran, this video on Israel, and this video on ancient vs. modern democracy — but there are so many more worth watching.
