In some climate fiction the recreation of mankind is the necessary solution to the climate crisis, while climate action progress such as significant carbon emission reductions is not sufficient. Examples of these stories of reformed humans include degrowth or return to nature, including stories taking the lead from indigenous cultures. Other examples might focus on the West turning elsewhere for archetype substitutions or some other significant alternative cultural shift. Alongside these themes, hopeful climate fiction frequently relies on radical social restructuring. These stories often pivot toward non-normative gender dynamics, BIPOC perspectives, or spiritual awakenings as the primary drivers of change. Yet other types of climate fiction include some shift in economic model or political makeover, predominantly in the abandonment of capitalism.

Unfortunately, when it comes to helping people understand how one can approach the problem of climate change and push for solutions, many stories have a fundamental gap between today’s world and the depicted later world. The telling point is that such stories are not grounded in the present and presuppose a major cultural break. It may be that such stories can show us a world that may truly be helpful and compelling at some point. For us presently caught up in the crisis of climate change, however, these stories do not reflect today’s world, since manifesting new worlds, good or not, require time passing because cultural transformation is typically a slow process.

The challenge, however, is that the pressing nature of the climate crisis means that we do not have the time to wait for a new world to appear, if climate change storytelling wants to be efficacious in contributing to solutions today.

No Gain in Degrowth Stories

Degrowth is an absurd expectation and climate fiction that posits degrowth as a solution to our current climate crisis is absurd, at least in any way other than as a parable. Certainly, shifting away from conspicuous consumption is a healthier way to live in the world. It is also true that our still-raging engine of consumer culture broadcasts the extractive economic model down to the level of the individual. Nonetheless, stories showing the pressure on the world planetary boundaries reduced by reducing human population is simply an apocalyptic tale cleaned up, corpses hidden from the scenes. There are already far too many stories portraying degrowth scenarios, as any reader of zombie plagues novels knows, or some other catastrophic pandemic, perhaps. There is the old stand-by of post-nuclear holocaust stories and the updated version of EMP tales. Then there are the ‘fast collapse’ storylines: asteroids, inexplicably fast-rising seas, or the cracking of the Earth. These narratives rely on widespread disaster to bring about a precipitous decline in mall visits and Amazon deliveries.

We have policies designed for accounting the price of carbon in consumer, business, and industrial goods, such as carbon taxes or fees. Creating a world that has fewer humans in it to ease the carbon burden the Anthropocene has produced is unnecessary. You want plastic straws? Then pay for them at a more realistic price, not an artificially low price that results from ignoring externalities of fossil fuel use. This applies across many domains. EVs versus ICVs is just one example, and god help us, great public transportation is also a part of the same domain. We also have a clear understanding of how changes in zoning can lead to smarter density and smaller carbon costs. We know that we can manage huge amounts of unused electrical capacity instead of building more gas plants, and we have companies already providing the technologies and services. We have laws and the means to make laws that hold fossil fuel corporations accountable for harm. We have elections that rid the governing structures of undue influence that disproportionally favors the small number of ultrawealthy at all others’ expense.

But a movement exists within climate fiction that seeks similarly radical world-building—fortunately, often with a lower body count. Even with the emergence of the “Thrutopia” concept of climate fiction, which purports to shift climate storytelling into a teachable methodology and the promotion of solution-focused narratives, there remains a reluctance to present worlds that doesn’t require a fundamental transformation of reality.

Wait, What Do You Mean by “Efficacy of Climate Change Storytelling”?

The result from a Google search on “efficacy of climate fiction” turns up a lot:

Climate fiction (cli-fi) serves as a potent, though mixed, tool for environmental engagement, capable of increasing short-term concern, empathy, and emotional connection to climate issues. While it can drive, in some studies, increased political efficacy and specific climate actions (e.g., increased donations, higher likelihood of seeking information), it often triggers negative emotions, such as anxiety or despair, which may lead to disempowerment rather than action. 

There are views that climate fiction can transform scientific data into relatable narratives, and in so doing expand the reader’s understanding of climate issues even while encouraging emotional or empathetic responses. One concern, of course, is that these emotional reactions can be negative, such as anxiety or despair that result in inaction.

Can beliefs about climate change and action about it be encouraged through climate fiction? The jury is still out, with conflicting studies making the case yea or nay. For some reason that is beyond me there is the view that climate fiction may be “particularly effective in developing climate literacy among children and encouraging them to think critically about environmental issues.” Whether such consequences are long-term or ephemeral—whether with children or the rest of us—remains unproven.

And what’s up with YA and MG climate fiction books? I understand that children and youngsters are anxious and quite possibly likely to come to help address climate change, but the need for action is now. We are already past the point of any climate resolution back to normal. If we count on children growing up in order to start in on the problem, there will likely be a whole different level of problem, and besides, isn’t it incumbent for the grownups to act?

The question of the efficacy of climate fiction to help more people consider the problem of climate change or learn more about it or raise the level of action is an interesting one. But why should we expect this from climate fiction if most stories jump to some far future, displaying worlds we can’t recognize as our own? I’ve got no problem with good writing of any sort, whether for kids or adults. How can climate fiction claim ‘efficacy’ when it ignores the practical steps we actually can to take today?

I used “efficacy of climate fiction” as my search string. The following AI Summary I found to be of special interest to me because it so spookily well-summarizes my own efforts with The Steep Climes Quartet:

Common Themes and Techniques:

• • Hope vs. Fear: The most effective stories often blend both, balancing the grim realities with possibilities for action.
  • Relatability: By placing characters in familiar settings facing climate-induced changes, it helps readers to better understand the potential impacts on their lives.
  • Future Imaging: It allows readers to imagine potential solutions and scenarios, encouraging a more proactive mindset. 

Feel free to do your own reading. Here’s just a sample of page 1 of search result links on the topic (I skipped around and page 20 in the search results was still going strong!):

• • The Influence of Climate Fiction | Environmental Humanities, by M Schneider-Mayerson, 2018
  • On the False Promise of Climate Fiction, Emma Pattee, 2023
  • The Curious Case of Climate Change Fiction – C21 Literature, by H Bolze, 2026
  • Climate fiction is a vital tool for producing better planetary …, by I Malpas, 2021
  • “Beyond Dystopia: The effect of reading hopeful climate fiction …, by B McWilliams, 2024
  • Fiction builds political efficacy and climate action, by L Page, 2022
  • Can Fiction Really Change the World?, by T Lash, 2023
  • “The Influence of Climate Fiction: An Empirical Survey …, by M Schneider-Mayerson, 2018
  • Why I Don’t Like Climate Fiction, Substack · Climate Fiction Writers League, by D.A. Baden, 2025
  • Approaching Climate Change Through Fiction? The Effects …, by JR Winkler,·2025

The Climate Fiction Writers League and Thrutopia

You shouldn’t be surprised that The Climate Fiction Writers League, which was founded in 2020 by Wren James and has a Substack by the same name, talks about climate fiction. In December of 2025, I wrote “Climate Fiction, Optimism, and Realism,” that largely focused on an article on Literary Hub, that explored the concepts raised in a just-published anthology called Climate Imagination: Dispatches from Hopeful Futures, and this essay was written by Joey Eschrich, who is the co-editor of the anthology. I liked what I read and set out to read the anthology itself.

The two editors have more recently published an article on Climate Fiction Writers League Substack. The essay is titled “Imagining a Writer’s Toolkit for Hopeful Climate Futures.” I did buy and read the anthology. It is a curious mix of academic essays and short stories. The academic aspect isn’t surprising, considering that both Joey Eschrich and Ed Finn both work at the Center for Science and the Imagination at Arizona State University; Ed is the center’s founding director and Joey is the managing editor.

Something else that surprised me is that the stories contained therein tended toward worlds not all that recognizable as the present one, including one novelette that was post-Niger fictional civil war that included magical realism elements. On the other hand, the short story “City of Choice,” by Gu Shi, caught my eye because it served a reasonable extrapolation of the use of AI in city planning for dealing with chronic flooding problems, but that story was technologically a bit far afield.

So, what’s my complaint? I’ll refer back to one of the search results listed earlier, Why I Don’t Like Climate Fiction, Substack · Climate Fiction Writers League, by D.A. Baden, which helped spark another recent post of mine, this one titled “Let’s Talk About Climate Optimism and Hope That We Can Write About Doing Something About Climate Change.” There’s another one or two CFWL posts by other writers that I referenced in the post, too, including one on the concept of “Thrutopium” climate fiction titled “Thrutopian Writing – a new genre for a new world,” by Manda Scott, published in May 2024, which starts this way:

Ursula le Guin spun us a challenge, and we’re doing all we can to foment resistance and change: ‘we’ who are writers, podcasters, poets, scriptwriters, bloggers of regenerative farming; those who are engaged in alternative politics, community food projects or land banks; co-housing groups experimenting with sociocracy, co-operative architecture practices, zero-carbon cities, or bio-regional banks experimenting with ideas that could yield a whole new global reserve currency….

My complaint? ‘Thrutopia’ has expanded to cover books that stray far from practical solutions. It seems to count ‘remaking the human species’ as a viable climate strategy—an idea that does little to address the crisis as it manifests in the real world today. I mean, yeah, better humans, better economic models, better moral perspectives can reshape the world but is this really going to happen before the continuing carbon emissions remakes the world, and certainly not for the better?

I believe that reconnecting with nature—whether through indigenous wisdom or simple exposure—is valuable. But frankly, turning down the planet’s thermostat is the more pressing goal. Whether it depicts a utopia or an apocalypse, fiction that ignores the near-term work makes it less likely we will ever reach that happy future—or avoid our worst nightmares.

I was listening to The 7am Novelist and its January 6, 2026 “Roundtable: Can Climate Fiction Move the Needle?” The Substack is by Michelle Hoover, and this particular roundtable had four authors participating. Here’s a bit more background, from the transcript:

…Ash Davidson. She’s the author of Damnation Spring. Wren James, creator of the Climate Conscious Writers Handbook and founder of the Climate Fiction Writers League. Emma Petit [sic], a climate journalist, author of the novel Tilt and the person who coined the term Climate Shadow. Tim Weed, author of The Afterlife Project, a finalist for the Prison Climate Literature Award. And Kate Woodworth, author of Little Great Island and creator of the Grassroots Climate Change Initiative, Be the Butterfly.

At one point, Wren James says:

We don’t really have that collective vision right now of what we want the future to be or what we want governments to spend money on doing, whether that’s free public transport and train lines and all those kinds of things. We kind of have vague ideas that we need to go to green energy.

But the specifics, we don’t know what a city would look like if it was a green city. Sci-fi writers and futuristic writers have the job of creating those stories to create this vision of the future that we then know what we want to push our governments to make.

I beg to disagree. There’s plenty of work being done on greening cities and expanding and improving public transportation and what we want the government to spend money on. There’s been all kinds of tremendous work undertaken, from solar/wind/batteries all the way to cultured meat. The Electrotech Revolution is here. If climate fiction authors don’t know about those efforts, then those efforts don’t get incorporated into their fiction and thus the “promotion of solution-focused narratives” falls short. As people better understand the world of the humanly possible, then their political support is encouraged and made that much more effective. One thing I know is that the right political action taken sooner rather than later makes the future world of reduced global warming consequences the best story.

That’s how climate fiction gets through.

The post Is Climate Hope Fiction Hopeless? first appeared on David Guenette.

I say there’s need for as much noise as possible about climate change, and, yes, best to be well-informed, of course. Here’s something that is increasing clear: Big Oil has turned the government of the United States into their bum boy, reversing climate progress and attempting to put in place programs that will have them sell fossil fuels for many decades to come, both to domestic gas power utilities and to as many foreign markets as can be gained.

This isn’t “just business.” This isn’t “free market.” This is a future that is antithetical to reducing carbon emissions at the very time that reducing carbon emissions is exactly what needs doing to keep climate change from getting worse and worse. This is a future being pursued through corruption that exceeds the worst previous instances of corruption in the history of the United States.

I’m not sure that polite restraint and cautious, faultless understanding of every aspect of climate change is all that useful, considering the battle ahead. There certainly seems to be a rise in calls for moderation, for calm, for getting everything right, for pinpoint accuracy on every bit of climate science and future projections, and the recent Bill Gates piece is just one example. Of course, predicting the future, especially for complex systems, is not a matter of pinpoint accuracy. But while we can’t know exactly what the global average temperature rise will be exactly when, we know global warming is a fact.

Somehow, though, there are those in the climate change arena who point to others’ distress about climate change and see such behavior as unseemly, apparently. Let’s all remain polite, shall we? How about a cup of tea, and please don’t raise your voice or point fingers.

Here’s the response to the persistent dictate that discussions about climate change should be decorous: Bullshit.

Climate change is a political issue, but it is also a moral issue: We must turn up the temperature on those forces that would burn the world up. We must make this immorality illegal.

The “politeness” sentiment is illustrated in the COP30 aftermath and in the previous COPs and other national and international meetings about climate change and in the coverage of the topic by mainstream (read “corporate”) media. Somehow, after more than enough evidence to the contrary, we still think fossil fuel interests must have a role in decisions about transitioning away from fossil fuels, or that Saudi Arabia or other petrostates have any right to skew consensus about addressing climate change. Here’s something we should all agree on: Al Gore’s view that the fossil fuel industry is the enemy of climate progress. To think otherwise is to concede the battle.

It is crucial that people be alarmed about climate change and that climate change is a core political issue.

While we may not know exactly what lies ahead, we know certainly that climate change is a big problem. We know that humans have been altering their environment at the geophysical level in the use of fossil fuels and that’s not good for a whole lot of species, including us. So, bicker if you wish about the definition of a point-something degree or the state of research that shows how much climate change will hurt the world’s GDP by 2050, but keep in mind that we already stand on a planet-wide emergency footing. Keep in mind that President Big Oil Stooge is making things worse in the United States, reversing a lot of carbon emission reduction efforts. Keep in mind that the U.S. is the second biggest carbon emitter in the world, with China having taken the gold only recently and threatening to give it back to us.

The good news is that it does look like the transition to clean energy is going to happen. Renewables and batteries have economy of scale and technological advantages and affordability fundamentals that fossil fuel lacks. The Electrotech Revolution is unstoppable.

Unfortunately, The Electrotech Revolution is being slowed down, at least here in the U.S., which, imperialistic thinking or not, means a slow down for the rest of the world, too. The real issue isn’t if The Electrotech Revolution happens, but rather will it happen fast enough. Even without Trump pressing his thumb on the scale to benefit fossil fuels, there are plenty of other headwinds. Build, baby, build should be the constant order of the day, at least if we’re talking clean tech and grid technologies and digital power management systems and not natural gas generation plants.

Yet too many in the climate movement minimize what we are up against, which is Big Oil, and its annual worldwide $5trillion dollar market. Come on, wake up and smell the petrochemicals: fossil fuels have been cavalierly dumping shit into everyone’s air, literally, and have been doing this since Day One, 200 hundred or so years ago, even while selling this shit to an ever-growing population that’s now surpassed 8 billion people. It’s not like I’m trying to argue that significant human advancement, including the 8 billion-plus people, couldn’t have happened without fossil fuels. Sure, okay. So stipulated. Thank you for your service, but retire already, and here’s your gold watch.

Fossil fuels are no longer the cheapest and faster way to bring power to people. Renewables are now cheaper and faster to put in place, with greater implementation flexibility, including micro grids not requiring the huge infrastructure buildout for transmission, and these are all good characteristics and a great comfort given the humans’ world-wide need for energy and the societal benefits that ensue from energy wealth.

Now that we have the tools and technologies of solar, wind, batteries (and some other still emerging technologies), we must confront the huge, entrenched interests of fossil fuel. This includes not just Big Oil but those who, for near-term rewards, support Big Oil’s ongoing nefarious climate change deny and delay tactics and market distortion strategies. Whether driven by delusional conviction or operating cynically for self-benefit, the fossil fuel corporations and petrostates and their supporters should be objects of close attention and reprobation. We must combat Big Oil’s corruption that extracts unfair advantages for market gain. We must demand legislation that identifies as criminal the corrupting activities of Big Oil and their minions, corruption aimed to keep Big Oil profiting from what is now a clearly inferior and more dangerous energy production system.

Climate change is a political issue, but it is also a moral issue: We must turn up the temperature on those forces that would burn the world up. We must make this immorality illegal.

The fact that clean energy has an established history of and the certain capacity for being more affordable and safer energy should make it easier to push for laws that directly block Big Oil’s corrupting practices. Let’s vote for political candidates who push for safer, cleaner, more affordable energy and for legislation to make political and market corruption illegal again.

It’s a win/win.

The post Putting the Bite of Law on Fossil Fuel Corruption first appeared on David Guenette.