Household cost of blockaded oil and gas

Citing the household cost of blockaded oil and gas to remind people of the desperate need to start climate defense. The article uses the fashionable term "toxic", saying that the topic of climate disaster and the need to prevent it has become "toxic". What does that actually mean? Why in general does a topic, cause, or person, become "toxic"? It is usually the result of a systematic campaign of vilification which aims to associate the target with a vague criticism, for which the reasons rarely rationally reconsidered. In the case of climate defense, we know this campaign has been operating for years, funded by the fossil fuel companies and spread by the many businesses that have relations with them and the politicians that they have funded. The word "toxic", at the concrete level, refers to the existence of such an association for that target. But its connotation puts the blame on the target. Thus, it is a weasel-word whose effect is to endorse the campaign -- in effect, to condemn climate defense for being the target of vilification by the rich. I therefore suggest rejecting the word.