How about calling it the subdizing-green-renewable-tech-'cause-it's-hugely-unecomical-tax?
Problem here is that the proposed solution (to the problem articulated by various green lobbies) is not a functional solution at this time.
Case in point, if 15% of people in society were to convert to basic electricity for heating and EVs, there would not be enough supply of rare earths and select precious metals to provide the batteries or construct the necessary infrastructure upgrades to service that 15% increase in demand.
It's no big secret. it is a fact
Again, that's a shot at somebody else's solution, not a solution of your own.
Look, as I've said several times, most recently in my support of pipelines, we are decades away from 100% "green." And as you've pointed out many times, "green" solutions have environmental effects.
But the pollution problems of "green" energy can be solved, just as the pollution problems of fossil fuels have been improved considerably. I read an automotive engineer who said that a 1972 Chevy Nova, brand new, put more pollution into the air when it was sitting at the curb with the engine off than a 2016 Honda Accord puts out when it's running down the road at 60 mph (100 kph).
It's also simply true that modern solar cells are more than ten times as effective at converting sunlight directly to electricity than the late-70s solar cells were.
Obviously (to me, and to you when you're not drunk) the solution is more engineering and more research on all fronts simultaneously. Research, both pure and applied, ALWAYS pays off massively. Research and engineering are the difference between a 1930 Ford Model A (1027 kg, 40 hp, 105 kph top speed, 13.4 mpg) and a 2020 Honda Civic (1100 kg, 158 hp, 200+ kph top speed, 35 mpg).
The materials needed for batteries and components of electrical devices, from phones to trucks, can be acquired with far less environmental effect than they are currently.
In any solution for applying energy to do what we want to do, cost (short and long term), environmental effects, and efficiency should be the relevant considerations, and research, engineering, and regulation should be the tools.
I'm willing to argue any of those, and any given product or project. But I'm pretty much done with people whose only contribution is to bray for or against "fossil" or "green" as a religion (defined as an overarching, emotional good or ill that the interlocutor nails her self-worth to).