No countries are "bent on energy dependence", because it isnt feasible.

The day-to-day idle chatter of your local representative is really irrelevant over the time horizons of a green transition. This is cultural ideological wash. If there were no security or economic basis for green transition, it would fail upon contact with any non-trivial security or economic issue.

Consider that the UK fired up coal plants when energy prices rose too much. Did it really ask the public to be colder for awhile? Of course not. Ours do not suffer, but theirs (be it india, china, africa...) well they ought not use coal that causes climate change!

The idea that green transition could happen for "values" reasons is ahistorical nonsense -- the values of all countries are the prosperity and the survival of their nation, and anything which threatens this will be handled ruthlessly.

It's rather dangerous to hold any stock in the idle ramblings of politicians speaking under no material duress -- they will say anything and promise anything, as will any of us, when it's cheap to do so. This is hot air. A kind of hot air the rest of the world now understands the west produces with abandon, it is now clear to everyone outside our countries what sort of propaganda we prefer. And it is this sort (moralising about values in the summer, ruthless hypocrisy in the winter).

So my comment here is to point out, to those who can take a longer view of these issues than that printed in newspapers, that there are macro forces at work preserving the green transition -- which is quite reassuring.

In the world we're entering, security competition is returning and this will be a significant drive of war-time-like funding behind energy transition. This is great news.

You're no doubt right that much of the current political class is unaware and unfit to transition their thinking fast enough to handle this; but they will. Most politicians of the last 200 years thought this way quite naturally.