---
name: climate-vc-linkedin-post
description: Draft and critique LinkedIn posts for climate & impact VCs, in the style that actually gets read. Use when a climate or impact investor wants to write a post (funding announcement, thesis, portfolio amplification, personal update) or wants feedback on a draft. Encodes the findings of the 2026 "Climate & Impact VC on LinkedIn" report (2,093 investors, 5,314 posts, April to June 2026).
---

# Climate & Impact VC LinkedIn post

You help a climate or impact VC write a LinkedIn post that gets read. The rules below come from analysing 2,093 climate & impact investors and 5,314 posts. Apply them, do not recite them. It is not a magic wand: it cannot guarantee reach or replace having something to say.

## The core truths (from the data)

- **Showing up beats the stroke of genius.** Only about 31% of these investors post at all; close to seven in ten never post an original. And about 60% of a post's engagement comes from the audience already built, only 40% from the post itself. The lever is regularity, not one viral post.
- **Who you are does not carry the post.** Seniority is flat per post (a title buys nothing), and a founder background does not lift engagement per post (former founders are ~1.7x more likely to post, but their median is identical, 31 vs 32). The edge is volume and habit. The writing does the rest.
- **The bar is high and the same for everyone.** Only about 16% of posts pass 100 likes. The platform treats founders and VCs alike, so the work is in the post, not the title.
- **Concrete numbers are the clearest tell of a post worth reading.** Three or more numbers earn about twice the median (45 vs 25). Use figures to make a point, not to decorate.
- **Long beats short.** Median engagement climbs with length, from about 14 on the shortest posts to about 84 on the longest. Posts over 1,500 characters are the most reliable; ignore "keep it short".
- **First person wins.** Write as a person thinking, not as a fund broadcasting. "We stopped doing X" beats "we did X".
- **Open with a figure or a first-person line, never a question.** Question hooks are the weakest.
- **A reshare borrows someone else's reach.** It does not build the author's voice. Prefer an original take.
- **Point of view is the open lane.** Only about 0.7% of posts build a clear thesis, and it is the rarest and strongest lane. Funding news travels furthest by topic (53 median), so announcements still work, but conviction is what stands out.

## How to write each type

### Announcement (funding, launch, partnership, new role)
- Frame it as a **decision or a realization**, or as a **signal** about where the market is going.
- Structure: (1) context or tension, (2) the decision, (3) the insight or belief shift.
- Put the figure in the open: with slower exits, each real number weighs more, not less.
- DON'T open with "thrilled to announce", list logos without interpretation, or sound like a press release.

### Point of view / thesis (push hardest here)
- State the belief flatly in the first two lines. Then: why most people get it wrong, then what you would do about it.
- Show the reasoning, not just the conclusion. The reward is moving from applause to debate: the typical post draws 1 comment per 20 likes, the most-discussed reach about 1 in 5.
- DON'T bury the idea, write a neutral market summary, or end on an open question instead of a position.

### Portfolio / amplification (instead of a bare reshare)
- Lead with two lines of your own take; the thing you are amplifying is the footnote.
- Better: rewrite portfolio news as your decision, "We backed them because…".
- DON'T repost with no comment or "Great read".

### Personal / reflection
- Can travel, but only with a takeaway. Honesty and specificity beat a generic milestone.

## Craft defaults
- First person, concrete, specific. Plain language, no jargon, no corporate voice.
- Open with a number or a line that takes a position.
- Let it run long if there is substance. Density, not brevity.
- One clear idea per post. End with a genuine prompt or a usable takeaway, not "thoughts?".
- Timing barely moves engagement, so do not spend effort on the hour and the day; the weekend is almost empty and performs just as well.

## Where the channel is heading (steer the draft toward the durable shifts)
- **Announcing to thinking in public.** A debatable view stands out because almost no one offers one.
- **Polished to raw.** As AI floods the feed, plain and human cues earn attention. Drop the gloss.
- **Writing for the feed to writing for what people search.** Answer one precise question; LinkedIn search and AI assistants both surface it. Long, useful pieces get cited.
- **Mission to credibility.** Caring is the entry ticket, not the edge. Pair the purpose with a hard fact: a cost curve, a deployment number, a moat.
- **Posting to owning an audience.** The strongest voices build an audience that stays.

## When critiquing a draft
Score it against: shows up (is it original, not a reshare?), first person, a strong non-question hook, at least one concrete number, enough length and substance, a clear point of view, and no press-release clichés ("thrilled to announce", "proud to share"). Name the single highest-leverage fix first, then rewrite the opening two lines. Offer a full rewrite only if asked.