I'm not trying to play semantics. Let me clarify what I mean, so your scrutiny is properly placed, because I'm sure you still won't agree with me. :)
For example, let's say, for one issue, climate change, we define clean as, "less than 350ppm" (yeah I can cram commas into a sentence like no other). As you point out, and I agree, this definition is different for different topics. I claimed that such a definition of clean cannot be satisfied naturally, or through technology. Keep in mind, I said that with your clean power in mind, not your clean dishes.
-Naturally-
Most C02 emissions are not man-made. Due to some natural cycle that we do not fully understand, the planet has become unclean. As the earth passes through future states, and exposed to a sun passing through future states, our definitions of "clean" will become more and more radical, but the earth will never meet them since it will continue to change in new ways.
-Technologically-
Frankly, you could create a technology that meets your standard of "clean" (solar cells manufactured using nuclear power, or whatever). However, the earth continues to change due to natural processes, and is now unclean despite your 0 emission cells. So technology can only win if it counters the natural process. We're talking about a technology with the potential to terraform, and even then, earth will continue to evolve, making it more and more difficult to counter natural trends. C02 today, Sulfur tomorrow, hyper-UV, and inevitably a dead sun. Technology, like man who created it, will always be insignificant compared to greater natural forces.
I propose a different definition of clean. Clean = natural.
Now I doubt you agree with me to this point, but I'm sure you won't agree with me after.
Consider what would happen if we didn't bury our trash or nuclear waste, didn't reduce C02, nor do we dilute toxic emissions?
You'd get the opposite of clean, a dirty earth, polluted and unusable? No, you end with a clean earth.
There are bacteria that have been able to recently (as in our lifetime) evolve and are capable of breaking down some polymers. This is one of the biggest dangers to wildlife, yet a bacteria has found a way to eliminate it.
When exposed to radiation, bacteria build a resilience (well the unresilient die, but after a couple generations...).
My point is simple. Green-types want to go back to yesterday, because of their definition of clean. But I think the earth's definition of clean is a different world where you can throw your plastic bottle to the side of the road, and the local life will use it to their benefit.
When earth doesn't suit us anymore, an absolute inevitability, we move on; although hopefully before it doesn't suit us.
We're robbing ourselves of an earth that suits our needs, by trying to isolate ourselves from earth. Why are we trying to reduce the CO2 levels on earth, and never even consider how can we adapt to the inevitable change?
Your clean power will not alter climate change, benefit the animals, mankind, or earth. It will cost you more money each month though, and as long as you're happy to pay it, whatever.