Without fanfare, climate change has moved off the front pages this year.

Ambition to address the problems continues, but not with a sense of emergency. Attention has shifted; global politics, conflicts and cost of living seem more pressing. Public buy-in is lagging. Across the globe, politicians are responding, linking rhetoric to public opinion, slowing the pace of decarbonisation. Crucially, the topic seems sidelined in the US Presidential Election, with carefully nuanced positions to avoid losing support.

Scotland has shown leadership with ethical and sustainable investment, emphasised by its Global Ethical Finance Initiative, GEFI. The title of its annual conference in Edinburgh last month - “Progress or Procrastination?” - highlights the concerns. But the delays do not seem to have triggered a reassessment by those driving climate change work. Long run success in this multi-decade global project may mean more immediate focus on engaging hearts and minds; on how to keep attention on the goals. And importantly how to listen to public feedback and respond with a better approach.

Despite likely consensus on the ambition of a stable climate, opinions differ on timescale, priorities and fairness. Scotland has already rolled back shorter term targets whilst keeping the 2045 net-zero commitment. But our major cities continue with 2030 goals.

Globally, new studies have questioned the deliverability of global net zero by 2050, suggesting that target might be delayed by as much as 20 years. While stretching aspirational goals might usefully drive change, all the multiplicity of dates and targets feeds public confusion.

And some question what the ‘net’ means in net zero – does the claimed offset of carbon emissions really work, and over what timescale? The natural environment is largely disregarded when calculating the impact of man-made greenhouse gas emissions and inevitably there is scepticism when it is brought back into play for claimed offsets, such as planting trees. Even the concept of carbon capture is not generally understood. The science of this needs to connect with citizens to demonstrate the equity of different rules for different industries. Straightening out communications on climate priorities could go a long way to win popular support.

Alongside the carbon calculations, evaluation is also needed of the colossal investment involved. Much of the money may need to come from government and major businesses. Even that involves understanding the impact on economic growth shorter term, and whether taxes and regulation might have unintended consequences.

Big companies do recognise that their longer term profitability depends on sustainability and most have change programmes driven by committed boards and executives. But many smaller and medium-sized businesses work on tight profit margins and lack resilience, viewing environmental concern as desirable but not their top priority. This echoes the perspective of many individual citizens.

Until recently, hope for climate change finance finance had been placed on the stock market, with regulation forcing labelling of investment funds that claimed environmental or social impact. A flow of investor money into these focused sustainability funds should have favoured virtuous companies and helped them to do more. Regulation of investment managers aimed to drive engagement with company boards, putting sustainability on the agenda. But surprisingly these sustainability funds have not taken off, with investors generally unimpressed by fund labelling. The emphasis on environmental and sustainable investing that was once a top priority for regulators seems to be waning.

Research on climate change now points to the scale and complexity of the shift. The established energy system is a huge interlinked set of physical operations, spanning power plants, vehicles, and materials such as steel that have very specific production requirements. The technology does not presently exist to remove carbon from some key industrial processes. Policy and regulation can be made quickly but changing a big physical system is a different order of challenge. The early focus must be on the enabling technologies that will underpin later change.

Carbon technologies have reigned for decades, steadily optimising efficiency in every part of the system. Many industries have built their processes on unique characteristics of that carbon-based energy system and cannot simply swap one supply for another. Experts suggest that progress in some crucial processes is just 1% of the way towards the necessary transformation. Low-emissions technologies also depend on some critical raw materials, needed for storage batteries for example. Booming demand for materials such as lithium and cobalt could quickly cause supply bottlenecks and price pressures.

Even solar and wind - though both making rapid progress – will reach a point where their importance in the energy mix requires major storage investment to address natural variability. Scotland was an early pioneer in hydroelectricity and has great opportunity in wind and wave power, but needs to attract capital to maximise this. Will the new Great British Energy, based in Aberdeen, prove the catalyst for clean energy? The major investments in net zero projects recently announced by Westminster are in the north of England.

Amidst the focus on investment, power generation and technology, it is easy to overlook the role of people. Politicians recognise the need for a just transition, but it is easy for unintended consequences to work against this. It might seem right, for example, to encourage banks to lend only on property meeting a specific energy performance standard, but that may not deliver building improvements or homes people can afford.

Regulations typically do not draw on the public purse, but without any price signals they may encourage withdrawal of services or make them unaffordable. It takes careful analysis to understand where costs land and ensure that the impact is just. That is difficult in a fast-moving climate change programme with many simultaneous initiatives.

GEFI has highlighted the need for organisations driving the climate agenda to be engaged with stakeholders, with public conversation needed on the big issues. Waning interest can be addressed by a fresh approach. The nation is convinced of the importance of the issue – but wants to better understand the plan and priorities.

Colin McLean is a director of SVM Asset Management Holdings, and investment manager of River Global Investors