Climate policy shifts from “saving the planet” to “creating jobs” – Watt gets along with it?

For years, climate movement has been the last greatest hope of “saving the planet.” But as public skepticism rises, elections waving towards climate realists, and set economic realities, messaging is undergoing a transparent shift. As highlighted in the Associated Press report, the latest reshaping efforts seek to reposition green energy as an economic lofty effort, promising employment and prosperity, not just lower carbon emissions.

If Some people feel the need to cater to narrow self-interests that can be tied to solutions that solve problems, why not?

Michael Oppenheimer, climate scientist at Princeton University

But this is the capture: these so-called “economic interests” are just political hands. Green industries remain entirely dependent on government subsidies, tax incentives and regulatory requirements, making them a net consumption rather than a net contribution to economic prosperity. It is not a self-sustaining economic revolution, but a shell game, a cost transferred to taxpayers when it drives inflation.

The desperate transformation of messaging

The Associated Press article clearly shows that climate activists and renewable energy supporters are abandoning their traditional “saving the planet” rhetoric in support of economic incentives in an attempt to make the green agenda more suspicious. Quote Simon Stiell, UN Executive Secretary for Climate, that the “better angels” that attract people are no longer there and green energy must be built at self-interest rates.

Message with this incumbent administration and Republicans is shifting to that energy, economics and employment work.

I think you want to meet with the audience, what matters to them, what will drive the conversation forward.

Jessie Stolark, Executive Director of Carbon Capture Alliance

This is a convincing admission. If green policies are indeed the economic engines claimed by their supporters, then there is no need for government authorization and sustaining their subsidies. Instead, the reality is that large government spending, artificial low interest rates and regulatory preferences, wind, solar and electric vehicles (EVs) are supported by large government spending.

The wrong commitment to green work

One of the most frequently repeated claims is that the transition to renewable energy will create millions of jobs. Former U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis believes that conservatives should embrace renewable energy because they “create a lot of wealth and create a lot of work in the United States.”

But what kind of job? At what cost?

History shows that government-funded green energy jobs are often temporary, low-paying and heavily subsidized. There are notorious people now Solyndra The Crash is a solar energy company that collapsed after receiving more than $500 million in federal funding, which is a great example. Recently, despite widespread government support, companies like Proterra, an electric car maker advocated by the Biden administration, have gone bankrupt.

More extensive research shows that for every “green job” created, multiple traditional jobs are lost due to increased energy costs and regulatory burdens. European countries actively pursuing a green energy transition, such as Germany Energy transition Policy – Electricity prices and unemployment rates in heavy industries soar. The United States risked the same pace.

The cost of inflation and government-driven “green growth”

Green Energy advocates talk about job creation, but they ignore the elephants in the room: the expenses. Renewable energy projects require a lot of taxpayer funds, as we have seen, large-scale spending packages such as the Lower Inflation Act, which are inflation on a large scale.

Industry leaders are lobbying to continue “critical tax incentives” to keep it going, the Associated Press report noted. Simply put, it means they need Government support remains viable. If these industries are indeed what they claim to be economic power, why do they need permanent subsidies?

Government intervention in the energy sector can distort the market, leading to inefficiency and higher costs for consumers. By contrast, the oil and gas industry, despite claiming to be “subsidized,” operates largely on the principle of free markets and remains a global economic powerhouse.

Conclusion: Political Sea City Rage Building disguised as economic policy

The transition from “saving the planet” to “economic prosperity” is not a real change in the effectiveness of green energy, but a marketing strategy. Faced with rising suspicion, policy failures and election rebounds, climate advocates are simply changing their names to make it more politically palatable.

From a climate or social perspective, this is not a perfect strategy because the private sector cannot be completely decarbonized, but under this administration, it may be the best choice for us to make progress.

Lisa Sachs, Director of the Columbia Center for Sustainable Investment

However, there is no basic flaw in messaging that changes green energy policy. A truly sustainable energy economy is not built on government subsidies, mandatory mandates and inflationary spending. It is built on market-driven innovation, competition and affordability, a principle that the green movement has always overlooked.

The push for green energy remains always: a government-driven economic fantasy, a kind of delivery that is almost impossible to deliver in reliable, affordable energy while shifting costs to taxpayers. The more voters see through this hand, the harder it becomes to keep their fantasy in the climate hall.

It's time to make a change…the danger to the catastrophic climate crisis is obviously not good at all.

Joanna Depledge, climate historian at the University of Cambridge, England

Related