Well, for one it starts in NY, and/or the left coast making new laws like that...and then auto makers making announcements that they will be all electric by XXXX date...which I guess is more like virtue signaling than forcing it down our throats...as when it comes right down to it, they will back off when things aren't working out...and therefore not selling...
But doesn't that (they backing out) mean that there is no "forcing"...?
That they *chose* to "virtue signal"? (and that apparently it pays them to cater to these wishes...? I.e. there is demand.)
Data, worldwide (so not US only):
e360.yale.edu
The world invested unprecedented amounts in low-carbon assets last year, from renewables to cleaner transport, energy storage to electric heat
about.bnef.com
I could not find studies from the same institution for both numbers, so I don't know how accurate a comparison is here. Yale and Bloomberg are good enough for me.
However, it suggests a factor of 10 difference. Worldwide.
The far, far, far higher amount of tax dollars spent on fossil fuels as compared to other sources is hindering the following approach.
Regarding energy, I think we should do *all of the above, with the exception of coal* (and with a large nuclear component).
Why?
(Because coal is rather dirty and detrimental to the forested hill landscape that is in appalachia.)
Because diversification is safe (see current state of world affairs - and on a local scale, see my oil boiler, wood stove, solar panels and minisplit).
Because it allows folks to choose the energy resource that is most suitable (see solar in Northern Canada). It creates a palette/spectrum of energy resources that one can pick and choose from.
And so that all get to a price point that is economically feasible.
That price point should include for fossil fuels e.g. insurance for inhabitants of low lying areas (or, yes, subsidies to move them away from those areas), as that is also the cost of fossil fuels. It should also include "mineral cost" (I'd say any non-renewable resource needed, e.g. anything mined) for all fuels.
However, the current skewed subsidization of fossil fuels hinders reaching a palette of energy sources whose mix actually works. There IS no unbiased picking from this spectrum of resources we have, because one has been pushed down our throat for a century and still gets boatloads of subsidies. The playing field is not equal.
In capitalism, a non-equal playing field will NEVER reach the optimum (spectrum of) solution(s).
Given the long, long track record of subsidies to fossil fuels, it's therefore in my view more than fair to subsidize renewable fuels for a while now to reach an even playing field. Currently fossil fuels have a 100 year head start. Let the rest catch up.
My $0.02