It’s tempting to call renewable energy “clean” because it feels good. It signals values. It aligns with climate goals. However, the term also creates blind spots—especially when used without context.
By Rokas Beresniovas and Sacha Alaby
During a recent Climate Week event, a recurring pattern stood out: presenters, panelists, and participants frequently referred to renewable energy projects as “clean energy,” “green energy,” or “eco-friendly energy.” These terms rolled off the tongue with ease—almost instinctively.
In an information-rich world, however, the words chosen matter more than ever. While referring to renewable energy projects as “clean energy” may seem benign to industry insiders, the use of the term may be construed as disingenuous by those who expect precision in language. Much like translating a concept from one language to another, shortcuts for ease of reference can result in meaningful loss. As this article outlines, a shortcut like “clean energy” can become a point of significant contention.
To clarify, this piece does not seek to slander renewable energy. Quite the opposite—it recommends a strategy that stakeholders can adopt to support its continued growth. More particularly, it calls for careful reflection on the language used to describe renewable energy—not only for the sake of accuracy, but to protect the credibility of the work being done to enhance energy infrastructure and to build trust with a broader audience.
READ: Align your finances with sustainability: How to choose bank accounts that support the planet? (January 27, 2025)
Let’s start with a simple but often overlooked fact: there’s no such thing as perfectly clean energy. As MIT’s Dr. Jennifer Morris notes, all energy sources—whether fossil-based or renewable—have environmental footprints. Whether it’s the mining of critical minerals, the use of water and chemicals in manufacturing, or the end-of-life challenges of solar panels and wind turbines, renewable energy is not free of externalities.
It’s tempting to call renewable energy “clean” because it feels good. It signals values. It aligns with climate goals. However, the term also creates blind spots—especially when used without context.
In an age where information is accessible in seconds, using terms like “clean energy” without nuance risks being perceived as misleading. Worse, it can open the door to accusations of greenwashing—intentionally or not. For capital providers, developers, and climate advocates, this is not just a semantic issue. It’s a strategic one.
READ: The hidden crisis of property underinsurance: A looming threat to housing stability (January 8, 2025)
Telling any story of progress requires being unabatedly transparent. Acknowledging the complexity of renewable energy projects over their entire lifecycles (including Scope 3 and Scope 4 related emissions) and recognizing trade-offs between different energy sources—both renewable and non-renewable—is not a reason to abandon optimism. In fact, being transparent about the imperfections of renewable energy in telling the story of progress can make its case stronger, not weaker. Doing so exemplifies seriousness, maturity, and integrity. Overlooking or downplaying any lifecycle pollution or negative impact involved in the realization of renewable energy projects can signal the opposite.
To quote Abraham Lincoln, “Nothing is more damaging to you than to do something that you believe is wrong.” While calling renewable energy “clean” may not feel wrong among renewable energy financiers, it’s worth asking whether it holds up in a broader context—especially when the credibility and momentum of the energy transition are on the line.
So next time, before deploying familiar terms like “clean energy,” it might be advisable to pause and consider whether such word selection oversimplifies a complex reality in the minds of the audience. A responsibility of transparency is owed to the people served—and to the future being built—to get the language right.