Climate and Renewables: The Great Decoupling?

I puttered around all day yesterday and today, fussing with different podcasts, trying to find some inspiration for a new and original set of thoughts and it just was not happening. I toyed with re-running an old edition, since it's RE+ week and a good chunk of my readership is in Vegas right now, having what is surely a convention week like none other. I even asked a chatbot to write me a draft, but it turns out robots aren't great at generating inspiration, either. This was experimental only: I do not publish AI-generated content or use AI-generated images in this newsletter. If I write something here, it's because I think it's true and adds value. But Claude sure does know how to flatter a gal with its mimicry.

Is it possible that in this moment, there are only so many things to say?

Trust the process. At 3pm on publishing day (I wasn't procrastinating, you're not my mom) some kind of neuron zapped its neighbor in just the right way and the magic happened. Sarah Kapnick 's guest appearance on Open Circuit recalled a discussion that unfolded in a meeting last week. She makes an offhand comment about insurance companies in Europe becoming more vocal about climate change policies because climate is impacting their business. Meanwhile, last week, a group of advocates discussed how to keep climate in the conversation in a moment when there's also a need to turn down the partisan intensity around renewable energy.

The thought struck me: climate change is costing people money right now and most people don't even realize it.

Climate, but make it personal

That's the play. Climate advocates should hammer home clear and visceral evidence showing how the effects of climate change are costing people money, right now. This is where the David v. Goliath story still works - Americans love it, and advocates shouldn’t shy away from it. Go hard against fossil fuels, shine a light on the dirty tactics they've used to rig the system in their favor, but the real crime they’ve committed is that they’re costing you money:

We’re not prosecuting them for some imagined crime against the future - they’re reaching into your pocket right now, and they want to rig the system even more so that their hand never leaves your pocket. Just ask the insurance company why your premiums keep going up.

People aren't completely oblivious, and this topic is not new. Most people have at least some vague notion that climate change = carbon = fossil fuels. 

We don't need to couple this with a message that renewables will deliver the solution to this problem, because they don't. The problem here is fossil fuel special interests that are trying to lock in their incumbent advantages and put up a moat around their market, despite the enormous real costs that have already been incurred and will only continue to grow as a result of fossil-driven climate change.

Renewables, but make it less political

So, where do we connect this to building more support for renewable energy? I think maybe we don't. People often lean on cliché arguments that individual projects or even state-level commitments aren't enough to "move the needle" on climate. Let's not even try to answer that question, because it's a silly premise. There are a lot of reasons people should want more renewables that are far more relevant than how much an individual project or policy might reduce emissions.

Industry advocates should focus on promoting renewables on their own merits - merits that matter to everyday people, like affordability, security, jobs, etc and debunking/prebunking nonsense disinformation about alleged harms from their technology. Meanwhile, climate conversations can focus on reinforcing that actually yes, this is a problem for you, right now. Not some abstract disaster awaiting future generations. And you should be Big Mad about it. That's it. People aren't dumb, they can connect those dots.

This kind of strategy would help boost the relevance of climate change policies in the eyes of voters, while also relieving individual tools in the toolkit from being responsible for "solving climate" or taking on the partisan baggage it carries. This isn't disbanding the coalition, it's deploying it more strategically.

What say you all? Was this already totally obvious and I'm just late to the party?