There are generally two points of view when looking at clean energy:
The incumbent voices seem to play these viewpoints as oppositional.
I'm hoping to add some numbers-based evidence to the increasing volume of newer, younger, and less entrenched voices saying that both of these viewpoints are actually complementary. That is, that it's both environmentally responsible and economically sensible to migrate towards clean energy, preferably as quickly as possible.
I also happen to believe that "the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment" in the same way that the tumour is a wholly owned subsidiary of the body.