Creating Impactful Messaging

People don’t care about climate. They care about their wallets. Just look at the recent U.S. election or the state of German politics. The economy is struggling, and major industrial players are in survival mode. This isn’t the time to sell commodities at a green premium—think raw materials, green cement, steel, heat, and more. In fact, it’s time to shift the narrative altogether: we should stop marketing solutions as “green” and focus instead on the direct financial benefits they bring. We need to offer products that impact people’s wallets—through cost savings, supply chain resilience, and job creation. Any solution we bring to market must be cheaper, quicker, and of higher quality—and IT JUST HAPPENS TO BE GREEN. From now on, let’s focus on a “green discount,” not a green premium. The good news? Many green technologies are already at this point. They don’t rely on regulatory shifts and are ready to deliver real value today. Heat pumps, behind-the-meter storage, solar PV, and more are paving the way. The future of #climatetech isn’t just about saving the planet; it’s about delivering sustainable solutions people can afford—and benefit from—today. In my next post, I’ll share what this all means for us as early-stage investors. #goodbyegreenpremium #venturecapital

Five years ago today, WHO held one of the most important press conferences when Dr Tedros declared #COVID19 a public health emergency of international concern — a moment that signaled to the world that we were facing a new global health crisis. It turned out to be unlike any other.   But while scientists, health workers and governments rushed to respond to the new virus, another battle was unfolding in real-time: the fight against health misinformation.   The phenomena of health misinformation wasn’t new, but this was the first pandemic of the digital age. Suddenly, false claims spread faster than the virus itself, reaching millions before experts could correct them. Fear and confusion filled the gaps where reliable information was missing. The stakes couldn’t have been higher.   Dr Maria Van Kerkhove and I reflected recently on what WHO has been doing to prevent false health information from spreading on #SocialMedia:   1. Engaging directly with the public — through #AskWHO live Q&A sessions, press conferences, we have answered real questions in real time.   2. Working with trusted messengers — from frontline health workers and scientists to religious leaders and digital influencers, so that people could hear accurate information from voices they already relied on.   3. Partnering with tech platforms — to ensure credible health information reached more people, while slowing the spread of harmful falsehoods.   4. Expanding access to information in multiple languages — so no one was left behind in accessing clear, verified health guidance.   5. Investing in research and digital innovation — to better understand the ways in which people consume digital content the best and adapt our strategies in real-time.   What we’ve learned about trust:   - Trust isn’t built in a crisis — it must be nurtured before, during, and after emergencies.   - People trust people — authentic, relatable messengers make the biggest impact.   - Transparency matters — being open about what we know, what we don’t, and how we’re learning builds credibility.   One thing is clear: the fight against misinformation is not over. Building and maintaining trust in public health is an ongoing effort — one that requires the commitment of governments, civil society, media, and the industry every single day.   Because trust isn’t a given, it’s earned.

Maybe the problem isn’t climate denial. Maybe it’s climate messaging. We’ve been attempting to scare or shame people into caring, and it’s not effective. Is it time to completely rethink how we talk about climate and sustainability? We've spent years trying to influence people through fear, data, and moral urgency. The results? Mixed. If we want genuine buy-in, we need to be honest about what’s isn’t working. Here are seven messaging mistakes we keep repeating. 1. Leading with Guilt and Doom: "We're killing the planet!" doesn't inspire - it overwhelms. Guilt sparks awareness, but rarely leads to action. 2. Talking About “The Planet” Instead of People People don’t wake up thinking about biodiversity - they think about bills, housing, jobs. Make climate personal. What can THEY GAIN out of changing their behaviour? 3. Assuming Rational Facts Will Change Behavior: 1.5°C Warming Is Essential, But Not Sufficient. Facts Inform, but Emotions Drive Action. 4. Using Elite, exclusionary language jargon, such as “net zero” and “green premiums,” alienates the majority. Sustainability can’t sound like it’s just for experts or elites. 5. Neglecting economic and social equity when we assume everyone can afford an EV or solar system, we lose trust. Green should be accessible to everyone - not just the wealthy. 6. Framing Green as Restriction, Not Opportunity: Less driving, flying, consuming... Where’s the upside? A green transition should feel like a win: lower bills, warmer homes, and cleaner air. 7. Treating Climate Like a Separate Issue. Climate isn’t separate from the economy, housing, or healthcare - it is those things. When we silo it, we shrink its relevance. So, how do we change the story? ✅ Speak to lived realities. Discuss how green policies improve everyday life, including jobs, bills, housing, and health. ✅ Shift from sacrifice to solutions. Replace “cut back” with “get more” - resilience, savings, mobility, and wellbeing. ✅ Make it simple. Use plain, human language. Instead of “decarbonize the grid,” say “cleaner, cheaper energy in every home. Help people to measure their carbon footprint.” ✅ Center fairness easily. Ensure that the benefits of sustainability are accessible - especially to those who have been historically excluded. ✅ Embed climate into everything. Don’t treat it like a separate crusade - show how it strengthens the economy, creates jobs, and benefits communities. ✅ Gemify climate action ✅ Give intrinsic value to change of behaviour and reducing carbon footprint. 👉 Time to stop scaring people into action - and start inspiring them with what’s possible. What language has been proven to be effective for climate and sustainability? Let’s share notes. ♻️ Repost this to help spread the word, please! 👉 Follow Gilad Regev for more insights like this.

Look at him! What a boy boss. 💅 Sounds strange, right? That’s because we never say boy boss. We don’t need to. The default assumption is that a boss is a man. But terms like girl boss, power woman, or She-EO exist because we still feel the need to highlight when a woman holds a leadership position. While often well-intentioned, these labels actually reveal how deeply gendered our language is—and how much work we still have to do. 🙌 Language is a powerful tool. It doesn’t just reflect reality; it shapes it. When we add qualifiers like girl or she to leadership roles, we reinforce the idea that women in these positions are exceptions rather than the norm. These words, instead of empowering, subtly remind us that leadership is still seen as a male default. True empowerment isn’t about adding a gendered prefix—it’s about removing the assumption that leadership has a gender at all. It’s about making sure that when we say boss, CEO, or leader, we automatically picture women just as often as men. ✨ That’s why gender-inclusive language matters, but even more importantly, language as a whole is a tool for change. The way we speak about leadership, ambition, and success influences how the next generation sees their possibilities. If we want a world where women in power are the norm, we have to start by speaking like it. 💥 So let’s move beyond girl boss and just say boss. Let’s recognize women in leadership not as exceptions, but as leaders. Because words don’t just describe the world—they create it. 💫 #LanguageMatters #GenderEquality

Discourses of Climate Delay 🌎 Discourses of climate delay subtly undermine urgent climate action by framing it as either unnecessary, too disruptive, or impossible to achieve. These narratives don't deny climate change but instead promote inaction through complex messaging, effectively slowing progress toward meaningful environmental goals. One common approach is to redirect responsibility. This discourse suggests that the burden of action lies primarily with individuals or other entities, rather than addressing the systemic changes required from industries and governments. By focusing on personal responsibility alone, broader, impactful initiatives can be sidelined. Another tactic is to emphasize the downsides of change, portraying climate action as a source of economic hardship or social disruption. This discourages support for essential policies by highlighting potential challenges rather than long-term benefits, impeding collective progress. The push for non-transformative solutions is also prevalent. This narrative often suggests superficial fixes, like minor fossil fuel improvements, as adequate steps. By promoting incremental changes rather than systemic transformation, these approaches can delay necessary shifts in energy and resource management. Finally, surrender narratives frame climate change as an unsolvable problem, encouraging resignation rather than action. This viewpoint implies that adaptation is the only feasible response, discouraging mitigation efforts. Addressing these delay discourses requires a clear focus on accountability, transformative solutions, and sustained commitment. Recognizing these tactics is critical to advancing genuine progress in climate action. #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #climatechange #climateaction

An ecommerce company recently approached my team to do an email audit as they were facing challenges with low open and click-through rates. After analyzing their email account, here are our main recommendations to revive their email marketing channel: 1. Strategic Email Segmentation: Currently, your emails lack personal relevance due to a one-size-fits-all approach. This is a crucial area to address. Action Plan: Implement segmentation based on purchase history, engagement levels, browsing behavior, and demographic information. 2. Personalized Content Creation: Generic content won't cut it. Your audience needs to feel that each email is crafted for them. Action Plan: Develop emails specifically tailored to the different segments. This includes curated product recommendations, personalized offers, and content that aligns with their interests. 3. Subject Line A/B Testing: Your current subject lines aren't doing their job. You need to be implementing ongoing A/B subject line tests, as this is low-hanging fruit to improve your open rates. Action Plan: Regularly test different subject line styles and formats to identify what resonates best with each segment. Keep track of the metrics to inform future campaigns. 4. Mobile Optimization: A significant portion of your audience reads emails on mobile devices. Neglecting this is causing a decrease in your email engagement rates. Action Plan: Ensure all emails are responsive and visually appealing on various screen sizes. Test your emails on multiple devices before sending them out. Additional Campaign Strategies We Recommend: - Launch a Monthly Newsletter: This should include new arrivals, style guides, and user-generated content. It’s an excellent way to keep your brand in the minds of your customers. - Seasonal Campaign Integration: Tailor your campaigns to align with holidays and seasons. This approach can significantly boost engagement and sales during key periods. - Re-Engagement Campaigns: Specifically target subscribers who haven't interacted with your brand recently. Offer them unique incentives to rekindle their interest. Next steps: 1. If you found this helpful, please leave a comment and let me know. 2. If you own/run/work at an Ecommerce company doing at least $1 million in annual revenue, message me so my team can audit your email channel to see if there's a good fit for working together.

We’re witnessing a paradox: despite a policy environment seemingly hostile to decarbonization (tariffs on cleantech imports, moratoriums on IRA fund disbursements, and the proposed rollback of DOE programs), U.S. climate tech funding surged by nearly 65% in Q1 2025. But what is perhaps more revealing than the capital flows is the rhetorical shift underway. In response to shifting political priorities, a growing number of startups are revising how they present themselves. Companies are beginning to distance their public messaging from terms like “clean energy,” “net zero,” or even “climate,” instead emphasizing “energy abundance,” “supply chain resilience,” and “domestic industrial capacity.” Others are shifting their messaging to appeal less to climate frameworks like the SDGs and more to the strategic language of national security and defense procurement. On paper, it’s a brilliant strategy. Venture funding is up. Nuclear and geothermal are gaining traction, bolstered by rising AI-driven energy demands and a revived narrative of American energy independence. In theory, this is resilience. But it prompts my question: should this reframing be seen as retreat or evolution? Language shapes how capital is allocated, which technologies are prioritized, and how legitimacy is constructed in the eyes of policymakers and markets. If climate tech can only thrive when it avoids talking about climate change, it risks becoming more about political fit than environmental impact. With that being said, it's no question the sector has always contained a range of compelling motivations (climate-first, profit-first, or both). Maybe this moment simply makes that diversity more visible. The challenge now isn’t whether the sector can adapt (it clearly can). But I wonder whether it can do so without losing sight of its core purpose. If climate ventures become contingent on ideological compatibility rather than environmental necessity, the sector may become structurally less accountable to its original goals. Would love to hear how others are thinking about this as I wrestle with it, both strategically and ethically. Source: https://lnkd.in/eCxFX8Kx #climatetech #decarbonization #energytransition #netzero #sustainability

Climate Communication Reimagined: Appealing Across Moral Foundations Recently, while working on energy transition scenarios for the Netherlands’ decarbonization by 2050 with TenneT, Jonathan Haidt’s insights from The Righteous Mind came sharply into focus. Full article: https://lnkd.in/gKQ4HfaQ Haidt research highlights six moral foundations — Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity, and Liberty — and argues that conservatives broadly use all six, while progressives strongly emphasize Care and Fairness. This explains why traditional climate messaging, dominated by progressive framing around harm prevention and fairness, struggles to resonate with broader audiences, especially conservatives. Effective climate advocacy requires blending messages to activate moral intuitions across this entire spectrum. For example, on clean energy jobs, progressives emphasize economic fairness, while conservatives focus on national strength and independence. A blended message: “Let’s revitalize America with clean energy, creating good jobs for all to keep our nation strong and independent.” On pollution, progressives speak to health impacts, conservatives to purity and national pride. Combining these, we get: “Cutting pollution protects our children's health and maintains America’s beautiful landscapes and clean air.” Framing climate change as a shared national challenge connects progressive concerns about global justice with conservative values around national security and heritage protection: “Protect our homeland from climate threats, safeguarding communities and the American way of life we cherish.” Even innovation and tradition can align: “Clean energy innovation continues America’s proud history of leadership, preserving the land and values we cherish for future generations.” In the Netherlands, debates around overhead transmission expansion benefit from similar messaging. Instead of purely technical arguments, framing transmission infrastructure as essential to national pride, heritage preservation, and economic vitality can resonate widely: “New transmission lines represent Dutch innovation, safeguarding our landscapes, health, and economy for generations.” I encountered this effective moral framing earlier while co-authoring Canada’s municipal guide for planned retreat amid climate risks. Communities rallied behind retreat initiatives when messaging emphasized collective good and community identity. European research, especially around Brexit, reinforces that messaging inclusive of national identity, sovereignty, and cultural integrity resonates more deeply than approaches limited to individual-focused morality. Ultimately, climate advocacy must leverage the full range of moral foundations to bridge divides and build broader consensus. Haidt’s framework is not only insightful, it’s essential for effective communication on climate and energy transitions.

The way we communicate about climate change is wrong. We talk to everyone in the same way, without adapting our message. The result? Most people outside our echo chambers cannot relate to what we say, and just ignore us or get defensive. Our message is lost and makes no impact. This is why last year I came up with the Climate Funnel framework. To help changemakers like you communicate more intentionally and effectively about climate change. The goal? To inspire more people to take high-impact actions for systems change. The idea is very simple - take a traditional sales funnel, and apply it to climate action. You could actually apply it to any other topic or issue of your choice - biodiversity, circular economy, degrowth, etc. The way we use this framework is very simple: 1. Identify where people are in their journey. 2. Adapt your message to meet them where they are. 3. Inspire them to move forward in the Climate Funnel. We all have different life circumstances and stories. Recognizing this and that we are all at different stages of our climate action journeys is key. Try persuading someone outside the Climate Funnel to go vegan or sell their car or stop flying or go to protests, and watch their reaction. Adapting our message is key. Here are some easy tips for you to communicate more effectively with people at each stage in the funnel: 1. Deniers - Just ignore them and move on. Your energy will be better spent in the remaining 90% of the population. 2. Unaware - Try to find out what they care about and ask them more about it. Keep it super local and relevant to them. 3. Aware - Continue learning more about the local issues that matter most to them. Develop a relationship with them - people will listen to you more if they trust you. 3. Motivated - Help them by joining forces. Suggest a few ideas of very easy actions that you can take together. 4. Low impact action - Firstly, acknowledge the impact they are making with those actions. Secondly, inspire them to start taking higher impact actions, one step at a time. 5. High impact action - The main challenge here is that people tend to remain in their echo chambers. Remind them that one of the most impactful actions we can take is inspiring more people to get into the Climate Funnel and move through it. Right now, there are too many people outside the Climate Funnel, or in the initial layers. What we need is an inverted Climate Funnel, where lots of people have moved through the different layers and are taking high impact action. I recently gave a talk about it in London - I'll drop the link in the comments in case you want to learn more. It would mean the world to me if you could share that video too. Let's inspire more people to get into the funnel and move through it. P.S. What do you think about the Climate Funnel? Helpful or not?

Two Finnish artists just showed us the future of rising seas with light beams. On the remote islands of Scotland's Outer Hebrides, Pekka Niittyvirta and Timo Ahokanto crafted "Lines" – an installation using sensors to trigger beams of light showing exactly where future sea levels will reach. As tides rise, white light activates across fields, shorelines, and buildings. Not charts, graphs, or projections – actual visual lines marking what's coming. Most climate models remain abstract until it's too late. This makes the invisible visible in real time. And the impact hits you in the gut in ways no slide deck ever could. The artists later brought this stark visualization to Miami Beach, letting another vulnerable coastal community see their future written in light. From Scottish islands to American shores, the message remains equally powerful. For those of us connecting capital to climate solutions, there's a valuable lesson. Sometimes the most compelling investment case isn't found in ROI projections, but in making climate risk tangible and personal. What communication methods have you found most effective when explaining climate risk to skeptical stakeholders?