No surprise here
Someone is trying to capitalise on a politically correct and popularly fashionable nonsense. This is not new. People has been doing it for ages: organic food, radium cocktails...
Seriously speaking - it is like trying to save a loss making business by cutting expenses on the flowers in reception while raising the CEO's salary.
The energy needs will grow and the carbon emmissions will increase no matter what saving programs will be attempted. This is the nature of human society - grow or die. Therefore, we will always save in one place at the cost of much higher increase in the other.
Loss-making businesses can only be saved by increase in revenues - that means dynamic development, getting larger market share, innovation. Cost savings only prolong the agony unless they are dramatic (and then it is easy to cut so much as to kill the business altogether).
In the case with carbon emissions - "revenue" is equivalent to *extraction* of carbon from the athmosphere, not mere reduction in emissions. The "dramatic" cost cutting is equivalent to switching to nuclear power generation.
So, unless someone talks in terms of nuclear power, fusion research and mass carbon sequestration - you can safely disregard what they are saying (at least in terms of saving the environment and averting/reversing the global warming).
That includes anyone pushing for energy efficient housing, wind and tidal power, aviation taxes, biofuels, carbon footprints and so on and so forth.