(A1) Remains to be seen if the problem is real or not
(A2) Assuming the problem is real, remains to be seen if we can do anything about it
(A3) Assuming the problem is real and we can do something about it, it remains to be seen what we can do about it
(A4) Assuming the problem is real, we can do something about it and it is within our power to do something about it, it remains to be seen if the government is backing the correct solutions
That's a lot of if's for such a large investment. We can spend that cash on real problems right now, instead of investing it to prevent future problems that might not even exist.
(B) agreed, that's what I meant with the remark.
(C) Those studies all skip questions A1 to A4
If it was economically viable to produce windmills and solar panels, the private sector would be all over it. But it's not. Therefore we need set tariffs and subsidies for these 'less economical' viable 'solutions'.
Anywhere a subsidy or a set tariff is imposed, it's per definition not economically viable. As soon as the subsidy or set tariff is retracted (see Spain, Germany, etc.) the marketplace collapses.
That's why we are in this pickle in the first place, it's a market reset for all the misallocated resources. I can refer you to some Austrian books on economics for citation if you want,..