It's self-deceptive to think that significant renewable use can be anything except lies. The only question is what end of the conversational spectrum are the l

It's self-deceptive to think that significant renewable use can be anything except lies. The only question is what end of the conversational spectrum are the lies offloaded? Potential for energy supply parity with non-renewables? Population life support (the third rail)?. True carbon math vs the feel-good type? Or like you note, actual renewable energy implementation in contrast with what is purported? Expect a shuffle, with a multi-agenda authoritarian streak under all. When "save group x" loses its political appeal generally, toward justifying politics, then "save the Earth" is an emotionally attractive and infinitely "renewable" excuse for acting anti-democratically.