For context, do you think that subsidies to address climate change are higher than subsidies to support energy sources that contribute to climate change? Not sure of the data myself, but I know that ther are plenty of billions on that side too.
In a lot of cases, this is like trying to pull apart a grilled cheese sandwich, or sausage making.
It's hard to tell exactly what you're dealing with and/or why a particular project was undertaken.
There are plenty of research initiatives getting government money that involve fossil fuels which are likewise "Green initiatives" to combat global warming by way of making engines more efficient, and so forth.
But it comes back to "a lot of the specific (costs) data" we'd need to make a determination on "what has this really cost us, for what gain?" Doesn't really exist. It is also likely an army of forensic accountants wouldn't be able to dig it up either, even with an unrestricted budget of their own and several years to do so.
There are plenty of "green" projects I have no issue with, up to a certain point at least. Who doesn't want better fuel economy after all? (At least until that extra 0.2 MPG means a new part that costs $3,000 to make, mostly due to the "rare-earths" used, and that part failing makes the vehicle unusable)
Likewise, from a space colonization standpoint, I cannot completely write-off solar power research, as that has direct applications in space. Likewise for battery technology research. However, other avenues of research(there is no viable wind-turbine application in space) don't quite enjoy that same degree of license.
That said, I can still critique the amount of
emphasis given to those fields. I do think a lot of that (federal) money would have been better used going to NASA's manned space exploration programs rather than going green.
As it still cycles back to: They spent Tens/Hundreds of billions of dollars in pursuit of technologies which if their models are right, will potentially slow the warming by less than 10%, and can do nothing but slow it, not stop it.
When they could have sunk those same tens of billions in more "dual use tech" with a specific aim of getting a lot of more "energy intensive" activities moved into orbit and beyond so it stops contributing. Which means it doesn't just slow the accumulation of said GHGs. It has strong potential to position us to flat out "stop the hockey stick" on the emissions side.
Oh yeah, except a lot of eco-nuts of the 1980's and early 1990's saw no value in manned space exploration either. That was wasted tax dollars that could have been used here on Planet Earth. At least until they got hooked to their Iphones 10+ years later, but even now I don't think they consider it(manned space exploration/colonization) seriously.
I still stand by the fact that the only tech "on the horizon" today, or even 20 years ago, was Nuclear, or hard-core Space Colonization if you're talking about seriously fighting/preventing an AGW-scenario
while also improving the lives of the rank-and-file human being in general.
All they've done so far is make energy more expensive, which has made everything else more expensive, which while that provides great incentives for "more efficiency" which is great, it also makes it that much harder for people to escape poverty no matter where they live.
Ergo: "Global Warming" is largely an agenda driven "beast" which is getting used to facilitate things which has absolutely nothing to do what they claim to be trying to do.
So even if I agreed with doomsday scenarios, I don't fully support their suggested solutions... As they don't solve squat.