If I ever hear another American politician say that we cannot afford the transition to clean energy I will scream. Why you ask?
In 2012 it was estimated that consumers in the U.S spent approximately $65 billion on soda. In that same year it was estimated that consumers in the U.S. spent approximately $11 billion on bottled water.  That is to say that American consumers spent over $75 billion on unnecessary drinks and, in the case of soda, a product that is generally regarded to be detrimental to your health. Not to mention the environmental impact of disposable, single use containers.
Okay, why is that relevant in the terms of this discussion? In 2016, the most recent year for which full year data is available, the U.S. invested $44 billion in clean energy including both private investing and government expenditure. 
Therefore, we spend more than 50% more on soda and bottled water per year than we invest in clean energy. If we just directed the money from soda and bottled water to clean energy investment it would represent an increase of 172%. That is a lot of solar panels and wind turbines.
Someone may argue that this scenario is impractical, but I would challenge such an argument on several fronts. One, spending on soda and bottled water—for the most part—is totally discretionary. No one needs a Diet Coke to survive and other than emergency situations no one needs bottled water. It could be argued that it would be better if no one consumed bottled water given the economic and environmental impact of a product that can also be obtained from municipal water supplies. Two, by and large individuals now have the power to redirect their discretionary spending toward renewable energy. As long as you have the capital or alternative financing arrangements are available you can put solar panels directly on your roof. Thus, your Diet Coke and Evian habit can be turned into clean energy. A direct substitution, so to speak.
My point is to illuminate that when we discuss the level of investment necessary to decarbonize our energy system it needs to be placed in direct comparison to some broader economic choices. Is the future our planet worth skipping that Dr. Pepper?