There are two problems with the move towards “green” energy: it’s horribly expensive, which hurts the poor the most; and it’s not actually all that green. Most “green” energy is meant to be carbon-neutral or produce relatively little carbon dioxide. (For one example, see here.) There is almost no consideration as to the other pollutants that are produced, which is entirely bizarre, as carbon dioxide is the most natural and clean “pollutant” out there.
For a moment, ignore the shaky science of “greenhouse gases” that may or may not cause climate change that may or may not be different from normal climate change. Carbon dioxide is an ideal pollutant: it causes virtually no harm to any ecosystem; it is food for plants; and it can be cleaned up, regardless of how diffused it may be through the world. In fact, it’s best cleaned up when diffused, because plants are scattered throughout the world.
If you find yourself rolling your eyes, please name a pollutant that is better than carbon dioxide or a source of energy that does not result in pollution. The real question is not whether pollution will never exist: basic thermodynamics dictates that all sources of energy are going to have some resulting pollutant. Rather, the issue is the type of pollution that our energy will create. Give me carbon dioxide instead of carcinogenic cadmium contaminated water, please.