Open Circuit – "The Case for a Climate Reset"

Podcast: Open Circuit | Host: Latitude Media
Episode Date: September 26, 2025

Episode Overview

This episode explores the urgent question: Does the climate movement need a pragmatic reset? With US climate politics in turmoil and both activism and clean energy finance in flux, three veteran hosts discuss how climate messaging, policy, and investment strategies are confronting new challenges. They also dissect recent leadership shakeups at major clean energy investors Generate Capital and Greenbacker, and debate the “doomer” versus pragmatic narratives now defining climate advocacy.

Key Themes:

• The need for a “reset” in climate movement strategy and messaging
• How finance and capital flows are shaping (and constraining) the energy transition
• The tension between idealism and pragmatism in climate politics

Featured Hosts & Participants

• Stephen Lacy (B): Executive Editor, Latitude Media (Host)
• Kathryn Hamilton (D): Chair, 38 North Solutions
• Jigar Shah (C): Co-founder, Multiplier; Former Director, DOE Loan Programs Office

Sections & Key Discussions

1. Shifting Terrain in Clean Energy Finance (06:56–22:45)

Background on Generate Capital and Greenbacker

• Both firms have raised and deployed huge sums into clean energy, but now face tough new market realities.
• Greenbacker: Pioneered retail investment in clean energy, offering access to non-accredited investors. However, their yield targets (e.g., 6% returns) and overheads have clashed with the low returns of safe investments like solar and wind.
• Generate Capital: Structured as a C-corp for flexibility, specializing in “leading-edge” (but not bleeding edge) tech investments (e.g., anaerobic digesters, battery storage).

Notable Quotes

• “Investment firms are really defined by their ability to raise more money. And right now, both [Generate and Greenbacker] are having a hard time.”
  — Jigar Shah [06:56]
• “If you actually are promising investors 6% returns... you need to make 9% to actually, you know, stay, break even. And that doesn’t come from low risk solar and wind assets. Right.”
  — Jigar Shah [14:16]

Key Insights

• The fundamental challenge: How to generate adequate returns for investors when mainstream clean infrastructure is increasingly low-margin.
• Both firms must decide: innovate on higher-risk/higher-return projects or restructure business models and return expectations.

Memorable Moment

• Discussing the real-world impacts of food waste digesters: “They just reopened the Cayuga facility in New York, which is the largest food waste digester… they processed a lot of White Claws that were mislabeled and had to be crushed.”
  — Jigar Shah [18:22]

Capital Constraints in the Sector

• A new “missing middle” is emerging—projects deemed too risky or small for big capital but too large for family offices or traditional sources.
• “It’s at least $100 billion (needed), if not more… and if you count up all [current] funds, that’s maybe a billion. So it’s not even close to the need that we have.”
  — Jigar Shah [22:18]

2. The “Climate Reset” Debate: Doom, Pragmatism, and Policy Narratives (26:40–48:49)

Political Backdrop

• Cue: Excerpt from Donald Trump’s UN speech dismissing climate change as a “greatest con job” [27:07].
• The hosts use this as a launching point to critique the “apocalypse” narrative prevalent in climate advocacy—a message which, they argue, hasn’t built durable political majorities.

Do We Need a Reset? (Michael Liebreich & Alex Trembath’s Critiques)

• Liebreich: Calls for pragmatic messaging—stop guilt-based, doomy climate appeals, and focus on practical, positive solutions.
• Trembath: Argues “climate hawkism” has failed, polarizing the issue and preventing broad support.

Host Perspectives

• Kathryn Hamilton:
  “My sensibility has always been you need people on both sides to get to the middle. So… you don’t get to a negotiation and a middle unless you have both sides to push back on.” [31:28]
• Jigar Shah:
  “Getting to 48 votes in the Senate for the IRA was virtually impossible. The left flank was important to get Sheldon Whitehouse and Bernie Sanders to agree on something.” [35:10]
• Stephen Lacy:
  “Instead of building a kind of durable majority… activists thought they were, they were often alienating voters who were… worried about paying rent, affording gas, keeping the lights on.” [28:46]

Narrative vs. Substance

• “The narrative should have been super inclusive about, like, this [climate policy] is actually going to affect your price of eggs. And now we’re seeing that happen.”
  — Kathryn Hamilton [33:33]

3. Evaluating Climate Movement Tactics & Political Impacts (38:50–51:28)

On the Value of the Activist Left

• Sunrise Movement and others “forced the discussion” and created room for more pragmatic, kitchen-table policy solutions.
• But there’s a danger in letting the movement be absorbed into the culture wars and “progressive identity politics.”

Host Consensus

• Having both the activist edge (“left flank,” doomers) and pragmatic center is essential—the tension produces movement and compromise.
• “The notion that you were going to go to the American people and say this is only going to cost you a little bit more, but we’re going to save the planet was always a terrible narrative… we don’t have to sacrifice. For the first time in my entire career, there is no sacrifice needed. You get the most affordable solution and the fastest solution.”
  — Jigar Shah [37:22]

The Problem of Borrowed Political Infrastructure

• Clean tech’s reliance on environmental group political machinery may not serve its current needs.
• “Now you see the clean tech sector actually building its own political rail and funding its own candidates… The environmental groups are going to have to figure out what it wants to do because it’s not clear to me that being pro stuff is what the environmental groups do.”
  — Jigar Shah [41:19]

4. Pragmatic Reset: What Would It Look Like? (51:45–58:54)

Liebreich’s “Eight Resets” (Summarized by Kathryn Hamilton [51:45]):

• Reset Climate Politics (less doom/guilt)
• Reset Climate Targets (more realistic; targets still needed)
• Reset Energy Priorities (be pragmatic about gas as backup, for example)
• Reset Hydrogen Expectations (stop magical thinking)
• Reset Diplomacy (streamline summits, focus on concrete sectoral deals)
• Reset Scientific Scenarios (update for today’s realities)
• Reset Finance/ESG (integrate ESG into broader finance & governance)
• Reset Policy/Regulation (center on value for money, climate value included)

On Climate Negotiations (“Shrink the circus”)

• Limit attendee numbers, focus on sectoral deals (steel, cement, shipping, etc.) instead of economy-wide, one-size-fits-all targets; separate land/agriculture from industry.
• “I totally agree with the circus. Like, honestly, I haven’t gone to a COP since I was forced to… Good riddance.”
  — Jigar Shah [55:08]

On Loss & Damage and International Aid

• The current finance mechanisms aren’t working as intended; mainstream for-profit capital now far outpaces “climate aid.”
• “At some point we just have to throw out things that didn’t work.”
  — Jigar Shah [60:43]

5. “How Can Young People Make a Difference?” (60:43–66:05)

Host Advice

• Kathryn Hamilton: “Do what you do from where you are… Writing to me is the biggest, best skill you can have. But really you can get to it from wherever you are, find your pathway from what you love and what you’re good at.” [61:05]
• Jigar Shah: Beyond throwing money at problems, future leaders must challenge current systems and innovate solutions—no more “groupthink.”
• Stephen Lacy: Advocates for local engagement—work on practical barriers like planning/zoning boards to get clean energy built where resistance is strongest.
  • “If people are continually resisting this stuff… it’s just not going to get built.” [63:53]

Systemic Barriers

• Breakdown in local journalism and accountability allows vested interests to block new solutions: “The best ideas are not the ones that actually get to the top… so much embedded resistance to change…” — Jigar Shah [65:02]

6. Closing Thoughts: Optimism and Hope (66:23–67:10)

• Jigar Shah: “I’m still as optimistic as ever. I mean, the fact that there are no trade offs today and that we are now the cheapest solution and the fastest solution gives me great hope…” [66:23]
• Kathryn Hamilton: Expresses hope for younger generations, spurred by her grandchild. [66:51]

Standout Quotes & Timestamps

| Quote | Speaker | Timestamp | | --- | --- | --- | | “When you look at investment firms, they really are defined by their ability to raise more money. And right now, both of them are having a hard time raising money.” | Jigar Shah | 06:56 | | “So the question becomes, first of all, who should figure out this complexity for brand new business models? ... Can you hand it off to lower risk capital?” | Jigar Shah | 11:26 | | “I don’t think you get there unless you have the left flank as well and have that pushing so that you have a middle.” | Kathryn Hamilton | 31:28 | | “For the first time in my entire career, there is no sacrifice needed. You get the most affordable solution and the fastest solution. And that should be celebrated.” | Jigar Shah | 37:22 | | “Clean tech sector has really abrogated its entire responsibility and developing its own political infrastructure… Now the clean tech sector has decided it should do it.” | Jigar Shah | 40:01 | | “If people are continually resisting this stuff, if local regulatory boards are not finding ways to build this stuff, it doesn’t matter how you talk about it, it’s just not going to get built.” | Stephen Lacy | 63:53 |

Conclusion

This episode of Open Circuit lays bare the core dilemmas at the heart of the energy transition: How do we fund the next wave of clean infrastructure? Should the climate movement embrace pragmatism over urgency—or is the push-and-pull between flanks essential? And as the debate spirals between finance, technology, politics, and narrative, the hosts ultimately call for optimism and renewed focus—at every level from local advocacy to global negotiation—anchored in realism and possibility. The climate crisis, they argue, requires both idealists and pragmatists, and the most successful path forward will blend vision with grounded action.