But how do you reckon you're going to make impact when you've got this kind of problem of people who don't really want to listen to this stuff anymore? You're producing some great journalism, but are you getting the pickup that's needed and the traction that's needed so people think about it and it's front of agenda rather than back of agenda?

It's definitely not that people don't want to listen.

Some politicians are not talking about it, but every poll you ever see about people's interests in climate and wanting trusted, true information about climate is very steady.

There's a huge demand for it.

The problem is it's being underserved, and it's being underserved because of that lack of... political agenda around climate, but also funding of journalism is becoming, as you know, tougher and tougher.

And there's a disproportionate impact on climate newsrooms when cuts are being made.

In the last year or so alone, we've seen Washington Post, I think half its journalistic coverage and it reduced its climate team by, I think, three quarters.

Is there a bridge that you're building somehow through communications and information which can somehow get over how dire potentially all of this is?