Something I know to be true but repeatedly forget, and I suspect is true for many others who want to make a difference with climate change, is the importance of separating the macro from the micro.
Here’s what I mean by that. I was on a call with a senior renewables developer, and 2 minutes into the call, he dropped a nugget that anyone in the customer discovery phase would be giddy to hear: “interconnection is the single biggest impediment to tackling climate change in the US”.
I hear something like this and my first reaction is whoa. I’ve solved it. I’m on to something. How could it not work out?
If you think about it more though, this is mostly noise. It can even be negative value if it gives you a false sense of confidence. All this means is that innovation in this space is likely aligned with the big picture of goal of reducing carbon emissions. However, it gives zero useful signal at the micro level — i.e. getting customer traction, finding a hair on fire problem, finding a wedge to build a first product. All the stuff that you actually need to get a startup off the ground.
Another way to think of this is moving between levels. The highest level is the climate impact. Lowest level is traction with customer #1. And there’s a ton of fun stuff in between, like finding the right business model, big enough market, repeatable sales cycle, etc etc.
The takeaway
Large, sweeping statements like the one I heard are a good validation for the macro level, but for a would-be founder trying to get off the ground, the only thing that matters is the micro level.
Lesson learned #2: traversing levels; macro vs micro
Devil is in the details.