That is just it though. The "interests" involved in this debate are the green energy sector v.s. the establishment fossil fuel industries, and their associated political/social arms. Let's say for a moment that the scientific consensus on climate change is wrong, and that the earth is merely going through a normal cycle of warming.
If we grant that premise, (which I do not for the record, but for argument's sake.) what is the debate really about? It boils down to a shit fight of corporate interests (fossil fuel) v.s. new corporate competitors, and green startups, IE the free market that offers a newer more efficient product.
So, if I am going to back a horse in that debate, it sure as hell is not going to be the fossil fuel industry. Fossil Fuels are an inefficient energy source at best, and scarce, polluting, and conflict generating on the negative side.
Just consider the cost V efficiency curve that OPEC, big coal, and Natural Gas producers have to contend with.
There is an economic incentive for the big oil companies to lobby automakers to hold back efficiency of the internal combustion engine, and you can only make combustion so efficient anyway, that is just thermodynamics. Green Power is the future. The oil lobby is the side doing the robbing if we are honest.
Imagine how much bloodshed the U.S. could avoid if it told OPEC to screw itself!
To speak to Coal's inefficiency, even when we try to clean the burn, the costs are enormous compared to the (as yet unseen benefits.)