During his Senate confirmation hearing last month, Chris Wright, the U.S. Secretary of Energy and former CEO of a fracking company, assured the Senate that climate change is real, that fossil fuels are the primary cause, and that he takes the issue seriously. “Climate change is a global challenge that we need to solve,” he said.
However, during a recent interview on Fox Business, Secretary Wright also touted the “benefits” of rising global temperatures, which have not been seen since before the last ice age. For Wright, the “positives” were enough to downplay the very real threats of climate change. Fox thought so, too; the segment reads “Energy Secretary Chris Wright discusses the benefits of global warming …”
“The bottom line is, it’s just nowhere near the world’s biggest problem today, not even close,” Wright told Fox. “Everything in life has trade-offs. A warmer planet with more CO2 is better for growing plants. The world has been getting greener for decades—14 percent more greenery around the planet today than 40 years ago. And we have far more people dying of the cold than from the heat.”
Wright’s talking points are classic examples of disinformation—rhetoric that serves the fossil fuel industry at the expense of science, public health, biodiversity, and justice. His comments reflect a disturbing trend in polluting industries: a shift from denial to a more insidious rebranding of climate change as an “acceptable” and even beneficial trade-off for economic growth.
By shifting from denial to distortion, polluting companies are attempting to craft a narrative that minimizes the crisis. Yet, the true cost of these “trade-offs” is clear: vulnerable communities, ecosystems, and future generations will bear the brunt of these changes. As this rhetorical shift unfolds, those in the cleantech sector must remain vigilant and recognize these tactics for what they are—attempts to mitigate accountability while continuing to drive the very forces that are hurting the world.
Climate Crisis? “Not even close …”
Wright’s comments are easily debunked, of course. While it’s true that CO2 can boost plant growth under certain conditions, it’s a dangerously simplistic view. Plant health depends on more than just carbon—factors like soil health, water, and stable weather patterns all play key roles in healthy plants and ecosystems. As people like Wright continue to crank up the global thermostat, the conditions needed for rich, biodiverse flora and fauna are quickly unraveling.
“Greener” does not mean biodiverse, a term Wright likely hoped would resonate with his audience. Most global “greening” comes from intensive agriculture and tree plantations, which rely on massive amounts of fossil-based agrochemicals and irrigation. This energy-intensive, polluting approach has a net negative effect on the climate and environment: The fertilizers release harmful gases that further contribute to global warming. The soil, depleted of nutrients and biodiversity, releases more carbon into the atmosphere than it absorbs. Water reservoirs are drained at unsustainable rates. And the carbon absorbed by these crops is often released back into the atmosphere as CO2 or, worse, methane.
While it’s true that more people die from cold than from heat, this is misleading. Heat is just one of many dangers posed by climate change. The World Health Organization predicts that by 2030, climate change will kill an additional 250,000 people each year. The U.S. National Climate Assessment estimates that over 1,300 people die in the U.S. each year due to heat alone and that extreme floods, hurricanes, and wildfires routinely kill hundreds more. The risks are broad and deadly, and framing the problem as “heat vs. cold” oversimplifies the devastating realities of a changing climate.
The Real Cost of These “Trade-Offs”
It’s essential to consider what kind of “trade-offs” Wright is talking about—and who stands to benefit from them. Climate models consistently predict rising temperatures, more extreme weather, and devastating impacts on ecosystems and human societies. The world’s most vulnerable communities will likely suffer the most—millions will be displaced, thousands of species will go extinct, and countless lives will be lost.
Polluting industries are increasingly focused on the “plusses” of a warming climate while omitting the very real and dangerous negatives. Furthermore, many fossil fuel giants are positioning themselves as positive climate players. The fossil fuel industry’s obsession with carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) This reframing tactic allows them to maintain the status quo while kicking the proverbial can down the road. As important as technological climate solutions will be in fighting global warming, they are not the panacea that many polluting sectors purport them to be.
Polluting industries might try to downplay climate change by presenting it as something manageable—or even beneficial—but this rhetoric ignores the irrefutable long-term harm that the planet is already experiencing as a result of climatic breakdown. And this is only the beginning.
