I am talking about, mostly, the ridiculous carbon credits and carbon capture technology which will cost several trillion dollars per year, all paid by, guess who? You and me. And it will mean exactly jack-squat.
More efficient use of energy is nessecary from an economic standpoint as well, so doing that will benefit us all. And both sides agree on better efficiency and reduction of imported oil fuels. The phase out of coal plants is nessecary because of the devastation it has wrought on the landscape and the pollution in cities, although the new "clean coal" plants are quite spectacularly pollution free, except for carbon dioxide, which is not a pollutant, but a naturally occurring substance.
My biggest complaint about the energy issues is that both sides seem to be going about it the wrong way. They completely ignore the cleanest source of energy and lowest environmental impact source: nuclear. solar and wind both need huge swaths of land to even make a minor impact, while nuclear plants can provide all the energy the entire country needs on a total land area the size of Rhode Island. Whereas wind and solar would require the land area of CANADA to produce the same amount.