Ken,
The news is not as glowing as your post. People that are not employees of fossil fuel companies are big parts of the backlash. Electric car sales are slowing down, and car manufacturers are backing off to some degree. California has more solar power production than its grid can handle and has to "curtail" solar power on many days, now, because of lack of storage capacity. Prices of solar power bought from rooftops are being reduced from the incentivized levels to realistic values, and that is undercutting the return on investment for home owner solar. Plus, the damage to roof top solar from hail and flying debris is starting to raise insurance costs.
Yes, new technology developments will continue to address many of the problems. But, it is definitely going to cost money to get everything to work on renewable power sources. And, making sure that the availability of enough power is reliable is going to be even more costly than just getting the total capacity as high as the total demand.
I am not seeing cost reductions at the retail level for buying "clean energy" from my grid provider, and I am not seeing cost savings from buying electric vehicles when I look at the usual ownership period for my vehicles, not to mention the lost capabilities from going electric compared to ICE engines.
So, reality is far less rosy than your post implies.
The governor of my state just signed an executive order prohibiting new installations of gas furnaces. Looking at that as an engineer, I see it INCREASING CO2 emissions for the foreseeable future. Here is why: modern gas furnaces are at least 95% efficient in converting the heat in the fuel to heat in the building air. But, although electric resistance heat is 100% efficient in converting electricity to heat in the building air, the efficiency of converting gas energy to electricity is only about 33%. So, about 3 times as much CO2 will be produced by requiring the natural gas to be used to make electricity instead of directly making heat in the building. People who don't think clearly will say to use heat pumps. But, heat pumps do not work here all year in all weather, 24 hours every day - some sort of backup is still needed. And, that is usually at night, when solar is not available to make the electricity. My state does get some of its grid power from nuclear, and a bit from hydro, but also some from oil and still a bit from coal, because a plant is at a strategic place on the grid and can't be converted. So, more CO2 until whenever we get to total "clean" energy on our grid. So, my preferred option would have been to allow gas backup heat to heat pumps. And, considering how often I have had to replace my heat pumps (which also has CO2 emissions from mining the materials to delivering the product to my residence), the improving efficiency heat pumps would offset the use of the gas furnaces whenever realistically possible.
Another aspect is that gas heat would provide a backup option for when the grid goes down, whether by the more violent storms (that the climate change people keep telling us about) or by a crashing grid that has not kept up with new demand from making cars and everything else electrical.
What I am saying is that smarter engineering of the transition is needed, both to more quickly reduce actual CO2 emissions and also to reduce the backlash. You can't just disregard the backlash, because those people vote, too. And, they can also riot and revolt. Better to take the complaints seriously than to disrespect the people you want to push to change.