You mean the cleaner technologies that taxpayers are going to have to subsidise to the tune of trillions of dollars because they don't work very well and are therefore not commercially viable?
Yes, those. And yes, the taxpayer is most likely going to have to subsidise* those technologies - or better, subsidise research into making those technologies more productive, efficient and ultimately commercially viable. And the sooner the better - because the sooner we develop and deploy cleaner energy sources, the less damage to the environment, health, etc. will be caused by burning fossil fuels - damage which will be hugely costly, in both human and economic terms, to redress.
The idea that we can carry on burning petrochemicals at an ever-accelerating rate with no blowback in terms of human, economic and environmental cost is incredibly naive, if not downright nihilistic - a massive f*ck-you to our own future.
*subsidise = pay for; you know, like we pay for every darn thing we need, whether through taxes or directly out of our pockets.