What goes missing in the analysis of energy sources is their geostrategic impact. The vast majority of government motivations for 'green energy' is geostrategic.<p>Oil/coal/etc. is distributed 'unhelpfully' for western and asian interests, and it's use once. So the countries which have it must be permanently available for oil trade. Whereas with green energy, barring the provision of somewhat renewable metal supply, states do not need particularly complex diplomatic relationships.<p>The reason for the world's attention now being drawn to the middle east isn't as simple as Hamas. Europe needs trade open from the middle east, and it needs oil. This is at the heart of trying to balance interests in the region wrt israel.<p>Both china, us and europe are overwhelmingly against any disruption in the region which is why it hasnt spiraled into a full-blown regional conflict <i>yet</i>.<p>Issues such as these play strongly on the minds of states as they try to transition. China's "going green" because its a net importer, and very worried about its dependence on russia and the middle east.<p>This, I think, should give us hope. Whilst going green is an economic hit, it's a massive security boost. And states almost always trade wealth for security (, since, in the end, without secrutiy your wealth will disappear).