Climate change is a social problem, and it’s going to take social change to bring about the solution. I still believe we can save ourselves from the climate crisis, but I also recognize that it’s going to take all of us doing everything we can to get through the climate crisis. She’s authored over 80 research papers and seven books. The future is really up to us.

We’ve got a great guest on the program, Doctor Dana Fisher. She’s a director for the Center for Environment Community and Equity. She is a professor at American University. She’s an author of Saving Ourselves From Climate Shocks to Climate Action.

She is a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute. She’s a TEDx speaker and former IPCC contributing author. She’s authored over 80 research papers and seven books. Quite a impressive resume and career. Welcome to the show.

Thank you for having me, Matt.

Well, tell us a little bit. I always like to get kind of the background of how somebody finds their way into the environmental movement. What’s your story?
Well, I’ve always wanted to make a difference. I grew up as a middle child, so we always tend to prove ourselves, because you’re neither the oldest or youngest. I grew up in a far east outside Philadelphia, and always really spent a lot of my time outside. And when I was in college, I was an East Asian studies and environmental studies major, and so started thinking about doing environmental work, and my path to ending up being an academic was kind of a not a straight path.

I actually, I went to DC right after college to try to do environmental lobbying. Learned that I am not meant to be a lobbyist for a number of reasons. So then I tried being in an think tank that did security and sustainable development work out in California. I did that for a few years, but realized that I basically couldn’t run my own projects until I had a PhD.

So I ended up in Madison, Wisconsin doing my PhD. And I always figured I’d go back to policy and kind of the policy research Nexus, like what they do at the Brookings Institution, where I’m a non resident Senior fellow, but I thought that that would be my home.

But I study climate policy making, but also democracy, something that needs a lot of attention these days, civic participation in activism, and that’s the part that I wrote for the IPCC. I think of the IPCC reports as being highly technical, scientific climatology type reports.

So what was your piece of those reports? So the IPCC is broken down into different sections. I was an author on the section on mitigation, which is about how we’re going to reduce our contributions to global warming by reducing the concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

And you know, as I like to talk about it, while many people think about doing work on climate as about these kind of atmospheric models or understanding the processes through which, you know, greenhouse gasses build up in the atmosphere, or how that affects, for example, the oceans. Climate change is a social problem, and it’s going to take social change to bring about the solution, and that’s what I study.

Well, that’s fascinating, that you could look at activism and scientifically analyze what effect it had on mitigation such as the Fridays for future, and tell us a little bit about what did you see? What are your findings on what that movement did?

So the work that I’ve been doing is really kind of broader about the climate movement, more broadly. I mean, I did a bunch of work about the numbers of people who got involved in Fridays for future. I mean, it was a really amazing wave of activism that happened, and unfortunately was prematurely ended by the COVID pandemic.

So the movement was growing globally. We saw millions of people out in the street, and then all of a sudden, lockdowns began. And it was a very notable decision that Greta and the other youth activists who were organizing the movement decided to follow the science, and when people were told to go inside and participate in lockdowns, they also stopped assembling even outside, because in the beginning, we didn’t know how the disease could spread and the risks, and the idea was to flatten the curve. It seems like ancient history.

Now that was the big draw, and so the movement went online, and they had a whole bunch of activism that was planned, and it all went online. And as a result, the movement basically fizzled out.

Well, I think this brings up a lot of different issues that are fascinating, one of which is the echo chamber, and personally, somewhat interested in it in terms of we certainly don’t want the work that I’m doing online and interviewing people to just be an echo chamber like that doesn’t serve what the purpose is.

So I’d be curious to know what would shift the conversation. Asia or kind of jump out of the echo chamber. And then the other thing is, how in 2024 it seemed as though Kamala Harris seemed to abandon talking about the climate as much as Biden did in 2020 and then you see the numbers go way down for youth engagement with for Harris and Trump ended up picking up a lot of momentum with youth voters, so clearly it didn’t work.

Yeah, let me go backwards in your question. The Harris campaign is a really good case study in how not to present yourself as a climate forward thinking candidate. Right? What Harris basically did, and the campaign decided to do, was to lean into moderate Democrats. HARRIS ended up campaigning with Liz Cheney in the end, and Harris refused to take a stand on fossil fuel extraction or expansion.

In fact, she was multiple times young people asked her her position on fracking, and she basically had, when she was a senator, had a position that she was going to try to support a ban on fracking in the United States. And then by the time she was running for office in 2024 for the presidency, she wouldn’t even talk about limiting fracking. I mean, the United States during the period of time, the four years that Joe Biden was president and Harris was vice president. During that four year period, the United States became the number one extractor and exporter of natural gas and oil in the world.

And Harris was deciding to lean into and continue that trajectory. In so doing, she thought that she would cater to fossil fuel interests, I’m assuming lots of really moderate oil extractive and natural gas dependent areas, which tend to be in a redder. But it didn’t work. And as we saw, young people abandoned the campaign, and we saw that for a couple different reasons. One of the top ones was actually the Harris campaign’s lack of a position on the Warren gossam.

So many young people were upset about that, and then those who weren’t upset about that, or for whom climate change was their boating issue, were so frustrated by the fact that she didn’t take a stand on fracking or fossil fuel expansion or anything. So the message was, basically, we’ve done all we need to do on climate change, which is absolutely untrue.

I mean, the science is very clear on that. That’s my perspective on that. And as a result, she lost the youth vote, which Biden, in contrast, had young people, including youth climate activists, campaigning for him and canvassing for him in in purple communities all over the country back during the 2020 election. It makes a huge difference. But you know, you need to actually follow through on campaign promises and make promises to young people that they care about. And the Harris campaign was not willing to do that.

Yeah, they were kind of playing it safe, and they got burned by this is important stuff. Let’s pivot a little bit to apocalyptic optimism and climate action, and exploring the concept of this and how it can motivate both individual and communities to act in the face of climate disasters, tell us a little bit about that.

The notion of the climate apocalyptic optimism comes out of my most recent book and saving ourselves. I call myself an apocalyptic optimist. I mean, I’ve been calling myself that for quite some time, and it’s kind of funny, because I used to believe that we could save ourselves from the climate crisis without being apocalyptic optimist. I really had a lot of optimism, and I thought technology could do the trick, but I just don’t believe that anymore.

And so when I was writing saving ourselves, which actually was motivated by my experience working for the IPCC, one of the things that was clear to me is that we really needed to be realistic about the path we’re on. There were so many people who were clinging to these dreams about carbon capture and storage is going to save the planet, or just need to make small tweaks in our personal consumption and that will solve the problem.

And they were being really unrealistic about the trajectory that we’re on in terms of where emissions are and where they need to be and where they need to go. I mean, there were all these discussions about the how the Paris agreement would stop the climate crisis, I mean, or limit it to a reasonable level, and yet we never actually even met the commitments under that. And now it’s sad to talk about the Paris Agreement.

So it became really clear to me that I needed to be realistic myself about the path we were on, but then I was also hopeful. And so I call myself an apocalyptic optimist, because I still believe we can save ourselves from the climate crisis, but I also recognize that it’s going to take all of us doing everything we can to get through the climate crisis.

And it’s going to involve people pushing back against power, because one of the reasons we got ourselves in this mess is because both governments as well as businesses are really captured by these, what we call these privileged fossil fuel interests, right who have access to power, they have access to natural resources.

Yes, and as a result, the access to power means that it makes it a lot easier for them to have decision making support what they want. And we have to push back against that. And you can see it really clearly if you look at voting behavior and the Congress, even before we had a Republican majority, and looking at the ways that a lot of Democrats who receive fossil fuel funding vote when they’re asked to vote on climate policies and climate initiatives.

I look at what’s happened over the last 100 plus days, and think Biden had done a number of things to kind of make the transition to renewables a little bit easier, and now Trump is turning that around and making it harder. So even with the Biden initiatives, we were going to be hard pressed to get where we needed to go. Now I’m seeing a lot more apocalyptic and a lot less optimism. Where do you see the optimism right now? I’m having a hard time finding it.

No, that’s a great question, I mean. And actually, I would just say so anybody who’s interested in my approach, who’s interested in my apocalyptic yet optimistic approach to check out my TED Talk, which just came out in November, which is called How to be an apocalyptic optimist. But what I would just say about that is, so I did a lot of interviews before the election about saving ourselves, and people would ask me, What happens if Trump wins?

And what I said is very clear. It was clear before the election that we are gonna need to experience it’s we’re gonna have to experience more climate shots before enough people are willing to push back against power the way we need to. And so in a lot of ways, being here in this period of the Trump administration means we’re getting to the apocalyptic part earlier and faster. And while it is really unpleasant and painful.

And I am not saying that I am enjoying it, or that many people should be enjoying it, particularly people who are losing their jobs and their livelihoods. But given that we know that it is the experience of personally experiencing climate crisis through climate shocks, climate change exacerbated extreme events, like we’re starting to see more and more of that will actually motivate people to action.

We will get there a lot faster with the Trump administration. The big question that I have, I mean, so I’m hopeful and, you know, optimistic that we will get there, the question is, how quickly do we get there, and how quickly can we stop the types of disasters that are are lining up to hit us right now? And that’s where we all need to be responsible and active participants in deciding what future we want to see, because the future is really up to us.

We cannot expect that some benevolent ruler is going to come in create the policies and make the changes that are needed. I mean, even Biden and he tried, he had to make these deals that involved expanding fossil fuel interest and fossil fuel extraction and infrastructure to actually get the bills passed, and he did that.
But now we have not limited our carbon consumption, we have not limited our fossil fuel use. We have just expanded the ability to create more energy by building out also clean energy, and we need to do something about that, because that we know leads to the climate crisis getting worse.

Well, I kind of feel like people need to take it into their own hands. To a certain extent, we saw something that made me slightly optimistic. Is with people boycotting Tesla and musk. And that was kind of a clear example of people around the world saying, Okay, we’ve had enough of you, and it seemed to move the needle a certain bit. I mean, if nothing else, Musk is saying, I don’t think I want to spend so much money on politics anymore.

This is a great example of looking at how we measure this type of activism and engagement. They start out as micro actions across the country at Tesla dealerships. In fact, I was in Los Angeles the week that they started the Tesla takedowns, and I remember walking by the Tesla dealership, I think it was in Santa Monica, and there were two people outside, and I took a picture. I’m like, Look activism, you know.

But I was like, Okay, it’s just this small little thing. But it blew up because people felt it was a great way for them to voice their concerns and their their frustrations with what was going on. And while it started with climate, it grew out and people who cared about labor practices and the things that Doge was doing because of that, lots of people came out, and they really reverberated. It didn’t just affect Elon Musk and his behavior.

It also led to purchases of Tesla going way down. I read, I think the AP was reporting that there are so many cyber trucks just sitting around to be sold because nobody wants to buy go. That is the way that people can voice their concerns. Use your wallet to do it right. You buy things when we’ve seen it over the course of history, people showing their personal opinions by how they buy and what they choose to purchase and what they choose to support.

This is a great example of it, and it can go hand in with other types of engagement and activism and that can really, like loss them into a really nice, successful resistance. So I think people all need to think about that. I mean, one of the other things I thought was really heartening about the Tesla takedown actions was that it was based in people’s communities. So people would come out with their community groups, with their kids, participate in something on the weekend. You could. Do it, but it was part of their community, rather than, you know, a large scale, something that involves, you know, just one little moment.

Because when you get involved in DOS, just do something for one Saturday, once a year, it’s really hard to make a difference, especially when we’re pushing back against, you know, fossil fuel interests that are paying millions of dollars, if not more, to lobby consistently and to push back against any type of effort to reduce carbon consumption, to support clean energy transitions, et cetera and so forth.

There are two questions that come out of that. One is, what happens in 2026 we’re seeing Republicans kind of in this big, beautiful bill. They’re trying to push through. They’re trying to do kind of a painless nobody gets cut too badly. We’re not going to have any big Medicare cuts or that type of thing. Like they’re trying to manage it in a way that they get through the 2026, election without skewering as many people as they’d probably like to and one, whether that’s gonna be effective.

And then two, the alternative path for the environmental movement is kind of boycotting entities and companies. And that’s the only language they listen to, is money. So stop paying them, stop buying their products. Also, I would just say that they’re in democracies, there’s a history of striking and while it may not seem like, I mean, it’s certainly not something that Americans have done very you know, in a common way in the recent past, strikes can be a really effective tool when you’re trying to affect change and get people, because it hits people.

It hits them in terms of the economic system, which is what needs to happen. I guess the question there is, which constituency, which group, which labor group, will stand up for the climate, because they may not see it as directly related to their lane, say the teachers union or the carpenters union, or who’s going to be the courageous group?

The beauty of the Trump administration right now, and what we’re living through right now in our country, is that nobody has to stand up because they’re standing up for climate. I mean, my book, before saving ourselves, was called American resistance, where I documented the resistance the Trump administration has policies back in the first Trump administration, and one of the things that we know is when there is a common enemy, the left unites in ways that we don’t otherwise see.

So you don’t need labor unions to be standing up right now for climate. They need to be standing up for labor because labor is being gutted. The people who care about LGBTQIA issues need to stand up for that. People who care about stopping systemic racism need to stand up for that. And it all comes together in a way that can involve pushing back against power. And in fact, some of my work that where I’ve studied this during the last trump administration, finds that when we see this kind of solidarity across identities, orientations, social classes and specific issues, movements are much more effective.

And so that is a really great we are approaching a great opportunity there, even though it will be motivated by so many people feeling like they have no other way to express their opinion and have any power in this country. So that is really unfortunate, but it will have unintended consequence of uniting people in a way that means that you no longer have to pick an issue. It’s all issues, because there’s so many folks who feel under attack right now.

You know, it’s interesting, because I know the Republicans want more, you know, and I think some of what they’re thinking about is, you know, electoral but I also would just say that we’re seeing resistance from Republicans across the different types of Republicans recently. So for a reconciliation package like the so called Big, beautiful bill to pass, the Republicans are all going to need to be on board, because Republicans don’t have that much of a majority.

So in order to do that, Trump has had to, or the Trump administration has had to step back from some of its goals. So I think that they also are framing it as leading up to the midterm elections, because some members of Congress are saying they can’t maintain their seats if they do that, I would just say that there was an interesting piece that I read recently about some of the early elections that have happened since the 2024 election.

There are some that have happened recently fill seats or people who have left, et cetera and so forth. And there are a bunch of them that will be coming in November. We have some state elections, et cetera that will happen. There are some governorships also up, including Governor of Virginia and others. But so far, what we’re seeing is that the Republicans are losing quite substantially in elections that have happened since November, which indicates that the Republicans are likely to lose quite substantially when we get to the midterm elections.

At some point, Republicans who are supporting the idea of a free election for 2026 are going to be very concerned about that the kinds of cuts and the cuts. Kinds of actions that we’re seeing from the Trump administration makes it very hard to imagine that they will be able to maintain the level of support they had when they came into office.

I would think so. That would be my, my guess, if it was a gambling man. And of course, the just the history is that in off year elections, or, you know, midterms that the party outside of power gains a bunch of seats, so the odds are definitely stacked in the Democrats favor that they will pick up seats in 2026.
Yeah, there’s a difference between picking up seats and having what we would call a blue wave, and there’s lots of reason to believe that if the electoral system, you know, holds that it we will see quite a big blue wave.

But maybe it does get us closer to the apocalyptic point where people are willing to do more, like right now, people are just not willing to do enough to make a real, substantial difference. That’s the unfortunate truth.

And I would just say that, I mean, based on the work that I’ve done, there’s limited evidence that elections, in and of themselves, can stop the climate crisis without there being real pressure to get to systemic change. And systemic change will require that fossil fuel interests and, you know, corporate money gets out of politics like we have it right now, because that’s part of the big problem here.

So what I would imagine, and what I talk about in my apocalyptically optimistic perspective, is that we see more and more climate shocks. They hit with more severity and more frequently around the country, and that mobilizes people to push back against power, to take to the streets, to engage in politics in their local communities to stop the climate crisis.

And we have seen some evidence of that. There have been some really interesting papers that come out recently from case studies in Florida and Texas, for example, showing that people who have experienced climate disasters or climate exacerbated disasters are more likely, no matter their political ideology, to support climate action and climate science. So there is a mechanism there.

The question is, how many people are we talking about? Are gonna have to lose their lives before we get there? We just saw so many unnecessary deaths because of the tornadoes this past weekend. The models to the degree that they are legitimate this point, I mean, but I know folks in Europe are also talking about this.
The models suggest we’re gonna have a very bad hurricane season, and we’re no longer gonna be able to predict it properly, because the people who do that work have been fired. So that means that we’ll probably see more loss of life.

And while that is horrible, and I never would support that, that actually, like there’s evidence, and you know, I talk about in my book how that actually will motivate more people to get involved in the climate movement and start to demand climate action that we need, and that is the mechanism that we need right now, because if we just wait and think that the next election is going to solve the problem, as you mentioned, Matt, I mean, there’s going to be so much lost, it’s not possible to imagine that we can just put it back together.

We’ve gone too far already, and we’re we’re nowhere near the election yet. The one thing that I think is interesting is that there seems to be this idea that if we don’t pay attention to climate change, we don’t pay attention to environmental degradation or environmental problems, that they won’t exist anymore.

And actually, what we know from research is that that’s exactly the opposite. It just gets worse, right until you can’t ignore it anymore. And instead, what we really should be doing is, you know, shining a light and trying to improve our water quality even more, improve our air quality even more, try to do something so that we can transition more quickly and away from dirty energy sources. But you know, that’s not what this administration is planning on doing.

Oh, that is why we’ve got to double down our efforts and triple down to do even more, to find a way to communicate to people and get people to act, and for all of us to take more effective action going forward. Dr. Dana Fisher, great to have you on the program, and everybody go out and buy a copy of her book Saving Ourselves from Climate Shocks and to Climate Action.

So some of your other seven books out there, amazing work that you’re doing, and appreciate it and keep up the good work.
Thank you for having me.

To learn more about our work at A Climate Change and how you can help us reach our goal planting 30,000 trees in the Amazon this year, visit aclimatechange.com.
Don’t forget to subscribe to our podcast on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. If you like this episode, please share it with a friend. See you next time.