World Economic Forum is making a lot of plans to "build back better" like you said. one of the aspect is that they want to make a net-zero world that no more carbon emissions out more than the planet can afford. in reality, if you look at the other side of this, they are wanting to make people own nothing too. some random banks in Sweden is already pushing out credit cards based on your carbon footprints, which was a literal conspiracy about ten years ago.
The modern green initiatives don't do much to actually stop climate change so the question to ask is whether people should feel comfortable paying 2x-3x their energy cost in order to reduce carbon emissions by using renewable/cleaner energy sources. And by doing so, making only a fractional impact on global average temperature increases over the next 100 years. Most people wouldn't even pay 1.1x their current energy costs even if it made a more sizeable impact than what the projections show. Russia, India, China, don't have any intentions on reducing their emissions any time soon.
The green energy hippies would rather have you freeze to death in the winter than emit carbon pollution.
this is real. an appropriate amount of carbon emissions rather keeps the soil on the good standing. greenhouse gases cause global warming, but doesn't mean not even an entity would need it. even the forest needs some carbon emissions to keep its life going. to make it a net-zero, we are supposed to make use of those pollutions and not reducing it.