The Great Green Rebranding: Climate Policies Shift from “Saving the Planet” to “Creating Jobs”

For years, the climate movement has been selling itself as the last, best hope to “save the planet.” But as public skepticism rises, elections swing toward climate realists, and economic realities set in, the messaging is undergoing a transparent shift. The latest rebranding effort, as highlighted in an Associated Press report, attempts to reposition green energy as an economic juggernaut, promising jobs and prosperity rather than just lower carbon emissions​.

if some people feel the need to cater to narrower self-interests which can be bundled into a solution to the problem, why not?

Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer

But here’s the catch: These so-called “economic benefits” are little more than a political sleight of hand. The green industry remains overwhelmingly reliant on government subsidies, tax incentives, and regulatory mandates, making it a net drain rather than a net contributor to economic prosperity. Rather than a self-sustaining economic revolution, it’s more like a shell game—one that shifts costs to taxpayers while driving inflation.

A Desperate Shift in Messaging

The Associated Press article makes it clear: climate activists and renewable energy proponents are abandoning their traditional “save the Earth” rhetoric in favor of economic incentives, attempting to make the green agenda more palatable to skeptics​. UN Climate Executive Secretary Simon Stiell is quoted as saying that appealing to people’s “better angels” isn’t enough anymore, and that green energy must now be framed in terms of self-interest​.

The messaging with this current administration and with the Republicans is shifting more to that energy piece, the economic piece, the jobs piece.

I think you want to meet an audience where they are, what’s important to them, what’s going to drive the conversation forward.

Jessie Stolark, executive director of the Carbon Capture Coalition

This is a telling admission. If green policies were truly the economic engine their proponents claim, there would be no need for government mandates and subsidies to sustain them. Instead, the reality is that wind, solar, and electric vehicles (EVs) have been propped up by massive government spending, artificially low interest rates, and regulatory favoritism.

The False Promise of Green Jobs

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 argues that conservatives should embrace renewables because they “create a lot of wealth, create a lot of jobs here in America”​.

But what kind of jobs? And at what cost?

History has shown that government-funded green energy jobs are often temporary, low-paying, and heavily subsidized. The now-infamous Solyndra debacle—a solar company that collapsed after receiving over $500 million in federal funding—is a prime example. More recently, companies like Proterra, an electric bus manufacturer championed by the Biden administration, have gone bankrupt despite extensive government backing.

More broadly, studies have shown that for every “green job” created, multiple traditional jobs are lost due to increased energy costs and regulatory burdens. European nations that aggressively pursued green energy transitions—such as Germany with its Energiewende policy—saw skyrocketing electricity prices and job losses in heavy industry. The U.S. risks following in those same footsteps.

Inflation and the Cost of Government-Driven “Green Growth”

Green energy advocates like to talk about job creation, but they ignore the elephant in the room: the cost. Renewable energy projects require vast amounts of taxpayer funding, and as we’ve seen with massive spending packages like the Inflation Reduction Act, this kind of government largesse is inflationary.

The AP report notes that industry leaders are lobbying for continued “crucial tax incentives” to keep their projects afloat​. In plain terms, that means they need government support to remain viable. If these industries were truly the economic powerhouses they claim to be, why do they require perpetual subsidies?

Government intervention in the energy sector distorts markets, leading to inefficiencies and higher costs for consumers. By contrast, the oil and gas industry, despite claims of being “subsidized,” largely operates on free-market principles and remains a global economic powerhouse.

Conclusion: A Political Mirage Disguised as Economic Policy

The shift from “saving the planet” to “economic prosperity” isn’t a genuine change in green energy’s effectiveness—it’s a marketing strategy. Faced with rising skepticism, policy failures, and electoral backlash, climate advocates are simply rebranding their agenda to make it more politically palatable.

It’s not a perfect strategy from a climate or social perspective, as the private sector cannot on its own fully decarbonize the economy … But under this administration, it’s probably our best bet for progress.

Lisa Sachs, director of the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment

But no amount of messaging changes the fundamental flaws in green energy policy. A truly sustainable energy economy isn’t built on government subsidies, forced mandates, and inflationary spending. It’s built on market-driven innovation, competition, and affordability—principles that the green movement consistently ignores.

The green energy push remains what it always has been: a government-driven economic illusion, one that shifts costs onto taxpayers while delivering little in the way of reliable, affordable energy. The more voters see through this sleight of hand, the harder it will be for the climate lobby to keep up the illusion.

It’s time for a change… banging on about the catastrophic climate crisis is obviously doing no good at all.

Joanna Depledge, a climate historian at Cambridge University in England