Hope is a much-discussed antidote to the (often crushing) feelings of environmental grief, anxiety, or despair. The assumption is that hope is vitally needed; without hope, we will collapse and lose any motivation to carry on. On the other hand, hope is occasionally questioned also in view of its presumed de-activising potential (as opposed to anger). My take on the issue is the profession of my philosophical uneasiness about the work that hope is expected to do. The key problems pertain to the unresolved question of how realistic, or fact-based ecological hope can (or should) be. I will touch upon several possible takes on hope in the context of the climate crisis (a fact-based realistic hope (Darrel Moellendorf), Kierkegaardian “hope against hope”, hope consisting in the certainty that the striving makes sense (following Václav Havel), “radical hope” inspired by Jonathan’s Lear notion, or Adornian hope consisting in reflection) and try to consider how well they apply here. My overall impression is that neither of these works without difficulties; but I may be wrong. It is certainly a question open to debate.