TCC #56 — Are we even in the debate?

Sustainability needs to move from defense to offense

Sustainability communicators, like much of the progressive world, often fall into the trap of reactive messaging — constantly debunking misinformation, defending climate policies, and responding to attacks rather than setting the terms of the conversation.

Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry and right-wing media are defining the public narrative around sustainability, ESG, and climate action before we even show up to the fight.

---

Remember when ‘ESG’ turned into a dirty word practically overnight? When ‘woke capitalism’ became the latest villain in the culture wars? When suddenly, investing in clean energy was framed as some sinister globalist plot?

This was a coordinated strategy.

While sustainability communicators were busy crafting 80-page impact reports and debating best practices for responsible storytelling, the right was moving the goalposts of public discourse in real time.

Rather than reacting to the news cycle, they set it.

They establish the talking points, mainstream them through their media ecosystem, and turn fringe narratives into dominant political positions. They frame climate action as a government overreach, sustainability as an elitist agenda, and ESG as a left-wing takeover of corporate America.

And they do it over and over again. Until these ideas aren’t just debated, they’re assumed.

Meanwhile, sustainability communicators are stuck playing defense.

Debunking rather than leading the conversation.
Reacting to misinformation instead of building proactive narratives.
Speaking in data and disclosures while the right speaks in emotion and identity.

This is a communications failure. If sustainability communicators don’t learn how to drive the narrative instead of responding to it, we’ll keep losing the battle for public perception.

The right already knows narrative strategy matters. Unfortunately, the left still seems to be debating whether investing in narrative change is worthwhile.

I’d go so far as to say that what the right does isn’t so much communicating as it is orchestrating. They don’t wait for the perfect message or airtight data (clearly) — they move fast, test ideas in real time, and push their messaging across multiple platforms until it sticks.

They operate with three key advantages:

1. A coordinated media ecosystem
   The right has a well-oiled messaging machine: Fringe blogs, Fox News, talk radio, YouTube commentators, ‘X’ influencers, and think tanks all reinforcing the same talking points. Narratives move up the pipeline in a coordinated way. They create the perception of consensus, even when they’re pushing extreme ideas.

2. Emotional framing over facts
   They don’t lead with data, policy details, or technical jargon. They lead with emotion. Fear, outrage, nostalgia. They tap into identity and values in a way that makes their messaging deeply personal. Climate action is positioned as a threat (to jobs, to ‘freedom,’ to ‘the American way of life’).

3. Relentless repetition
   They realize that changing public perception seems to be about saying the same thing over and over until it becomes ‘truth.’ They don’t abandon a message because it doesn’t immediately catch fire — they hammer it home until it becomes part of the culture. ESG and DEI were largely unknown to the public until the right turned these topics into a culture war battleground.

Now, contrast that with how sustainability is communicated:

• Fragmented messaging
  There is no unified ecosystem reinforcing key ideas. Just a scattering of press releases and one-off campaigns. Climate activists, scientists, NGOs, and corporate sustainability teams often lack a unified messaging strategy. Compare this to how think tanks, conservative media, and fossil fuel-backed lobbyists are all aligned behind a narrative.

• Over-reliance on facts
  The left assumes that if people just see the data, they’ll change their minds. (They won’t.) The right speaks in narratives while we speak in white papers and PDF reports. Climate action gets framed as ‘a globalist conspiracy to control your life,’ meanwhile, sustainability communicators are struggling to put together a cohesive, compelling story about how clean energy will make lives better.

• Hesitance to repeat messages
  Sustainability and climate communicators fear being labeled as ‘alarmist’ or redundant. We’re playing an entirely different game; one that assumes rational arguments will win over an audience that's being fed emotion, fear, and identity politics on a 24/7 loop.

If we want to shift public perception around sustainability, we need to stop playing defense. What might that look like?

---

Stop waiting for permission

The right doesn’t wait for perfect consensus before pushing a narrative. They don’t sit in endless strategy meetings debating the risks of saying the wrong thing. They blast, refine, and reinforce until a message sticks.

Sustainability communicators, on the other hand, often get stuck in analysis paralysis — endless rounds of revisions, fact-checking, and approval cycles that make messaging sluggish and reactive. By the time we’ve perfected our framing, the right has already set the tone.

The takeaway: Get your message out there. Test it. Improve it as you go. But stop waiting for permission to start shaping the conversation.

Set the terms of the debate

Right now, the sustainability movement spends too much time defending itself against conservative attacks instead of leading the conversation.

Take ESG. Instead of explaining why it’s not ‘woke,’ why not reframe the conversation entirely? Talk about why responsible business is good for people’s wallets and lives. Instead of debating whether clean energy is ‘too expensive,’ push the narrative that fossil fuels are an unstable, inflation-driving mess that harms everyday people.

The takeaway: If you're explaining, you're losing. Control the frame. Position sustainability as essential to prosperity, health, and security — things no one can argue against.

Invest in long-term narrative change

The right didn’t stumble into dominance over cultural and political narratives. They built an infrastructure to sustain it.

Think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute craft the policies. Media outlets like Fox News and Breitbart amplify them. Influencers, podcasters, and politicians reinforce the messaging until it’s embedded in public consciousness.

Sustainability communicators, by contrast, often chase the news cycle instead of setting it. We lack the long-term, coordinated effort necessary to control the climate narrative at scale.

The takeaway: Narrative change isn’t a campaign — it’s an infrastructure. We need media platforms, trusted messengers, and a strategic pipeline for messaging that doesn’t just react, but proactively shapes public understanding.

Make sustainability relatable and emotional

The right understands that facts don’t move people — stories do. They use emotion, identity, and relatability to make their narratives feel true, regardless of accuracy.

Sustainability communicators often take the opposite approach: data-heavy, wonky, and abstract. People don’t wake up thinking about carbon pricing or energy grids. They think about their jobs, their bills, their kids’ futures.

The takeaway: Frame sustainability around what people care about. Instead of talking about ‘net-zero targets’ (which the US Secretary of Energy recently decried as a ‘sinister goal’), talk about lower energy bills, stable jobs, and healthier communities. Make it personal. Make it matter.

Emphasize community over crisis

Doom messaging and moralizing don’t work. Research shows that fear-based narratives overwhelm people into inaction. The right, while framing the left as lacking in morals and doom-mongering, focuses on belonging, identity, and community, creating a sense of in-group loyalty within their base.

Instead of framing climate action as a sacrifice, we should frame it as an opportunity — a chance to build a more secure, affordable, and resilient world for the people we care about.

The takeaway: People want to feel like they’re part of something positive. Instead of leaning into crisis and catastrophe, lean into momentum, solutions, and shared progress.

---

The sustainability movement is losing because we’re letting others control the narrative. We have no cohesive plan to rally behind. We need our own Project 2025. A project 2029. Assuming there is a 2028 election…

It’s time we set the agenda, not just react to it. We need to build a messaging infrastructure that matches the scale of the right’s influence. We need to make sustainability feel urgent, relevant, and personal.

The right didn’t build ideological dominance overnight. They invested in the long game. It’s time for sustainability communicators to do the same.