Dear Friends,
This summer, I’ve been learning how the words we use shape how we think about climate change—and how certain messages can slow progress. A recent article from Colorado Public Radio featuring Secretary of Energy Chris Wright stood out. In it, Wright calls his approach "climate realism."
At first, his words sound reasonable. He admits climate change is real but says it’s not urgent. He argues we should adapt and wait for countries like China and India to act first. But after reading Genevieve Guenther’s book The Language of Climate Politics, I see this as climate lukewarmism—language that sounds calm but delays real solutions. Lukewarmism accepts some science but downplays the danger. It allows inaction to feel justified.
As someone interested in sustainable investing, I’ve realized that how we talk about climate change also influences how we allocate capital. The words leaders use shape investor confidence in clean energy, infrastructure, and resilience. Understanding the rhetoric is essential—not just for policy decisions, but for making informed, values-aligned investment choices.
Here’s a breakdown of Wright’s arguments and how Guenther’s work helps explain what they leave out.
1. "I believe climate change is real"
Wright said, "Yes, humans are warming the planet, but the idea that this is a crisis is just false." This downplays the science and urgency. The UN, NASA, and IPCC have all made clear that the world is on track for dangerous warming. Guenther explains that calling it "not a crisis" sounds moderate but gives people permission not to act.
"People who use this framing want to seem reasonable," she writes, "but they quietly redefine the threat so that inaction becomes acceptable."
By softening the language, Wright weakens the case for solutions. Guenther would call this a rhetorical shield—it protects political comfort over planetary reality.
2. "The impacts of climate change have been overstated"
Wright said, "Wildfires and floods? That’s mostly hype." But in 2023, the U.S. saw 28 billion-dollar disasters. In 2024, global climate damage hit $320 billion. These aren't normal patterns—they are worsening due to rising temperatures.
Guenther says calling worsening weather “just weather” makes it seem like we don’t need to respond. This framing reframes loss as background noise. It keeps the public from understanding that these disasters are part of a bigger climate picture.
3. "We need more fossil fuels for human flourishing"
Wright said, "Fossil fuels are the greatest engine of human well-being in history." But in coal regions like West Virginia and parts of Pennsylvania, economic hardship has grown—not shrunk. Coal employment has declined for decades. Meanwhile, renewable industries offer new jobs.
Guenther argues this framing treats fossil fuels as morally good, even as they cause lasting harm. Air pollution from fossil fuels is responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide, a staggering toll that underscores the true human cost of delaying climate action. By glorifying fossil fuels, Wright implies that clean energy threatens human progress—when in fact, the opposite is becoming true.
4. "We can adapt" and "technology will solve this"
Wright said, "We will innovate. We will adapt." But Guenther warns that focusing only on tech and resilience shifts attention from reducing emissions now. It gives the false comfort that future tools will solve what today’s action can prevent.
"Innovation without structural change just delays reckoning," she writes.
Wright’s phrasing avoids short-term accountability. Guenther’s view is clear: adaptation is not a substitute for prevention. She’s right, according to the International Energy Agency, over 80% of the emissions cuts needed by 2030 can come from technologies that already exist today, not future innovations. Relying too heavily on tech solutions risks sidelining the real work: phasing out fossil fuels and changing the systems that prop them up.
5. "India and China pollute more than we do"
Wright said, "It’s unfair to demand the U.S. act when China and India are building new coal plants every week." But both countries are leading in clean energy growth. In fact, China invests more in solar and wind than any other nation. India’s renewables are expanding fast.
Guenther calls this a distraction—it shifts blame and discourages leadership. She would say this framing erases America’s ability to lead by example. It encourages delay by pointing fingers.
"It erases leadership potential and shifts blame elsewhere."
But the U.S. doesn’t just have an opportunity to lead in emission reduction—it also has a chance to create well-paying jobs in emerging energy markets and drive long-term economic growth. Leading the clean energy transition is not a burden; it’s a competitive advantage waiting to be claimed. For investors, that leadership also represents a growth opportunity—especially through funds that focus on low-carbon leaders and clean tech innovators, such as Amana Growth fund (AMIGX) or the S&P 500 Fossil Fuel Reserves Free fund (SPYX).
And globally, emerging markets like China and India offer both climate and economic potential. With growing clean energy sectors and expanding middle classes, they are worth watching. Investors looking to diversify might explore sustainable emerging market funds like the Artisan Developing World Advisor Fund (APDYX) or the Calvert Emerging Markets Advancement Fund (CEFIX).
What Realism Should Mean
Realism means facing facts. Climate-related damages totaled $320 billion last year. BloombergNEF warns trillions in fossil fuel assets could lose value. These aren’t opinions—they’re measurable risks. Guenther’s version of realism is honest, urgent, and forward-looking.
Lukewarmism may sound level-headed, but it protects the status quo. And the status quo is failing us—heatwaves, wildfires, floods, and insurance losses are all accelerating. Incremental change can't keep pace with the scale of the crisis we're facing. Real leadership means confronting reality and choosing action—not comfort.
Thank you for your continued trust in our services.
Warm regards,
Braden Price
Intern, Green
Green Investment Strategies, Inc. may discuss and display, charts, graphs, formulas which are not intended to be used by themselves to determine which securities to buy or sell, or when to buy or sell them. Such charts and graphs offer limited information and should not be used on their own to make investment decisions. Green Investment Strategies, Inc. is a registered investment adviser. Information presented is for educational purposes only and does not intend to make an offer or solicitation for the sale or purchase of any specific securities, investments, or investment strategies. Investments involve risk and unless otherwise stated, are not guaranteed. Be sure to first consult with a qualified financial adviser and/or tax professional before implementing any strategy discussed herein. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. This is just, like, my opinion, man.