2025 has made one thing unmistakably clear: climate change is accelerating and attention and political will to address it are waning. Record-breaking heat, extreme weather and cascading impacts collide with geopolitical fragmentation, disinformation and growing fatigue around the very word “climate.” For those working to advance climate action, this is an unsettling moment – one that forces us to confront uncomfortable questions about our relevance, communications and impact. As familiar strategies lose traction, the climate community is being pushed to rethink how we act, talk and collaborate, opening the door to new approaches that generate meaningful impact.
How can the climate community, in particular climate think tanks as NewClimate Institute, still have an impact in a world that seems increasingly hostile or indifferent to climate change? Can we even use the word “climate” in a constructive way anymore? What levers need to be pulled, and what buttons pushed, to achieve real progress on climate action today? And what role can climate communication play in this critical moment?
These and many more questions have accompanied us at NewClimate Institute in 2025 – a year that, yet again, broke negative records in devastating extreme weather events, global temperatures rise and geopolitical turmoil and fragmentation. At the same time, political momentum and consensus on climate change have been dwindling worldwide. With disinformation on the rise and some proclaiming the beginning of the ‘post-truth’ era, the climate community is faced with questions that touch the core of what we do. While these developments are unnerving and at times frustrating, they also create opportunities to explore new ways of acting and driving meaningful impact.
We are all in the same boat. That much is clear when talking to climate experts from think tanks, foundations, media and public service about the current fragmented political landscape, geopolitical challenges and shifting societal priorities. But what is the way forward for the climate community? While opinions on the specifics differ, key common threads emerge from conversations with our peers and partners, as well as from our internal reflections:
1 Double down on core strengths while complementing others’ expertise.
While the climate space is constantly evolving and focus areas are shifting, building parallel expertise from scratch – or on a whim – is unlikely to be as effective as working alongside and amplifying organisations that have long led in these areas. We should be careful not to drift away from our core missions and lose integrity, while at the same time acknowledging the growing importance of other topics, such as adaptation, resilience, security, technology and generative AI, and building new alliances to link to them. Why rebuild expertise that already exists elsewhere, when instead we could complement, connect and amplify those who have been leading in these areas for decades?
2 Build resilience through stronger collaboration and networks – especially with Global South partners.
In a post-truth era – where independent science is increasingly attacked or distorted – it is more crucial than ever that community stands above competition and that like-minded organisations and individuals support one another. In a volatile political and funding environment, being embedded in strong alliances makes organisations more resilient, credible and influential. Collaboration should also be understood more globally – shared perspectives and strong partnerships between so-called Global South and Global North partners will be crucial in the next phase of climate action. While there is a clear appetite for greater collaboration, follow-through often remains a challenge. Collaborative approaches and network-building are not always incentivised or easily integrated into prevailing working and funding models in the climate space. And increasing competition for a generally smaller pot of funding can trigger organisations to withdraw into a more selfish mode.
3 Adapt messaging for a fragmented, contested information space.
We should stay strong on our climate messaging – now more than ever – but pay much more attention to the why and how of what we communicate. Framing and narratives matter: appealing solely to conscience or goodwill will not drive more ambitious climate action. Instead, we need to connect with what matters to our audiences, adapting both messaging and language. Some organisations deliberately avoid the word “climate,” instead reflecting the language of the current political leadership such as competitiveness, security or resilience to resonate with (conservative) voices in power. Others see value in doubling down on classic climate messaging, including terms like 1.5°C target or Paris-aligned pathways. What unites these approaches is that the what of the messaging is rarely the issue; it is the delivery and the framing that matters. Each organisation must decide how far it can lean into different framings without compromising integrity.
4 Prioritise communication, outreach and direct engagement.
Communication and outreach will be instrumental in navigating the shifting climate landscape. Yet, in contrast, communication is often deprioritised in traditional research projects. This is not always by choice, but often a result of systemic constraints. While there are inspiring examples of funding supporting communication- and outreach-heavy projects, with built-in flexibility to respond to unforeseen developments, these remain the exception rather than the norm. Communication should be viewed as part of the solution, not as an add-on. Beyond written outputs, direct engagement is increasingly important: in-person events, closed-door briefings and tailored outreach help build trust in uncertain times and ensure messages reach decision-makers and other key audiences.
5 Translate strong evidence into influence through actionable formats.
Delivering robust technical analyses remains important, but more can be made of the findings and messages they contain. In climate communication – and science communication more broadly – the assumption that gaps in knowledge, and therefore a lack of “right” action, can be addressed simply by conveying more facts still prevails. This model, however, has been refuted time and again. Instead, the focus should be on translating research findings into practical, audience-specific outputs, including targeted briefings, shorter and more accessible formats or visualisations. The current situation challenges us to think more creatively about how we present our findings, but also how we spread them. As traditional media lose influence to more fragmented, individual-centred platforms, focus should turn to alternative channels of dissemination – for example through thought leaders.
With a healthy degree of flexibility and willingness to move away from “how things were always done”, the climate community can come out the other side stronger and with an updated toolbox. It is also good to remember that, even if climate has slipped down the societal and political agenda, concern about climate impacts remains high, and support for climate policies is still strong. Seen through a more optimistic lens, this challenging time is an opportunity: by focusing on engaging people’s values and concerns we can inspire and catalyse meaningful climate action.
The climate community is at a crossroads. In the end, each organisation (and each individual) must decide how best to handle the situation. At NewClimate Institute, we spent some time in 2025 reflecting on our impact and discussing possible shifts. In 2026, we will continue to closely observe external developments while exploring new ways to engage with our partners, peers and audiences.
With many uncertainties ahead, and the possibility that things may get worse before they get better, now is the time to regroup, rethink our ways of working and dare to try new approaches.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of NewClimate Institute.
