Pedro Domingos

Here are the best estimates of the pollution cost of fossil fuels: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649 … For coal, the externalities are larger than the entire value added – we’d be better off with zero coal production. As we did with acid rain, lead and cfcs, we can address this.

Now your beginning to think like an economist (a compliment in my circles, believe if or not) A great way to make it easy for people to take into account the costs and benefits of alternatives (including externalities) is with Pigouvian taxes:https://taxfoundation.org/tax-basics/pigouvian-tax/ …

So you think we should have a larger Pigouvian tax on coal and oil to accelerate the switch to cleaner sources like most economists do? I was literally at a conference of economists this morning where this was discussed. Here's a good list:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigou_Club 

Here's another example of what economists think about carbon taxes: https://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/carbon-taxes-ii/ … I hope you are in step with the overwhelming majority of economists, but it doesn't sound like you are.