"But how are you going to pay for it?". Easy. Tax the fucking rich.
Hmm. I don't think that will work. If by 'the rich' you mean corps like Apple, Amazon etc, then I absolutely agree. They are a tick on every country in the world.
We need to make building offshore wind (and PV) a more attractive business than sucking oil out from the sea bed.
The cost of building offshore oil rigs is immense, they are incredibly ugly and the decommissioning is expensive and easily polluting. The 'nudge point' of making offshore wind a more attractive business can't be far off. I think it was BP that paid a record price for licence to build wind in an area. Just a little push more . . .
There's a simple solution to that – I mentioned it earlier – if you want to suck oil out of the ground or seabed fine, but pay the actual costs.
Taking it out of the ground immediately becomes economically unsustainable – and this is the true picture, fossil fuel is only a profitable business because the producers don't pay for anything, not even the immediate problems burning them causes. If you are in hospital with asthma because you live by a busy road, they're not paying the bills. And, of course, they're not paying for the cost of climate change. When you burn fuel, you are now passing a non-negotiable IOU to your kids, for an unspecified amount that's payable at an unspecified time.
On a wide scale, and with some irony, capitalism is only successful because we subsidise it. Carmakers wouldn't go far if we didn't build roads, for instance. Taxing the rich mostly doesn't work, they're mobile, there's not many of them, and they have lots of lawyers. Corporates need governments, however.
Anyway, paying the real costs of fossil fuel would, of course, completely change the economics of renewals, they'd be an order of magnitude cheaper. You can imagine why the fossil fuel industry aren't keen on this.