I'm sure those initiatives are very good and they will continue...

I'm sure those initiatives are very good and they will continue to develop and be successful.

There are three points I'd make: firstly, they are not zero carbon. If anything contains steel or aluminium or any of the vast majority of industrially produced materials, they are made by burning coal, oil and gas. When things break down they have to be replaced, again by things which are made by burning fossil fuels. "Zero carbon" is not accurate, it is a variant of virtue signalling called greenwashing where you look at one small positive aspect of the thing and pretend that it's the whole thing, ignoring all its filth behind the shiny green paint daubed on it.

Secondly, the success those projects are having is embryonic. They have to be scaled up and that is hard. How big do they have to be scaled? I like to look at the example the biggest machines or vehicles ever made. The biggest ones on land are mostly used to extract coal. The biggest ever floating vessels are offshore gas processing plants. What the energy transition is setting out to do is replace the biggest industrial operation in the history of humanity. It's not being taken seriously, the commitment is inadequate. Puny. If we were to avert catastrophe, we needed to have started on this 20 years ago, and gone a lot harder than we are now. The major emitters are still increasing their emissions. We actually haven't even started yet. All those solar panels, all those wind turbines, and we haven't even STARTED to do the thing we know we need to do, which is stop emissions.

Thirdly "approved funding for projects in the US and Europe" is categorically NOT "physical" progress as you state. Is "positioning" even physical? I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just saying, come on, be realistic here. That's next to nothing. We are up the creek.