[meric]

The total economic loss is (economic gains from burning coal to generate electricity) - (economic losses from the pollution and injuries caused by burning coal to generate electricity).

If the gain from burning coal to generate electricity is more than enough to counter the loss to do so, then leaving the coal in the ground is an economic loss.

[migsvult]

Well yeah obviously. The entire point of the scheme is to lower our coal usage by shifting into less economically efficient forms of energy. That strictly implies lower overall economic output.

If fact, any emission-lowering scheme (besides funding new technology) will lower economic output.

But the question at hand is if the sale of assets itself would cause economic output to go down, if the billionaires selling their stock and purchasing land rights would somehow destroy value. And the answer is clearly no.

[meric]

EDIT: You're right, economic loss is a cause of a fall in stock prices, not the other way around, in this scenario.

I'm saying the lost value is the coal in the ground doing nothing[1], from billionaires selling stock and purchasing land rights and doing nothing. I'm disregarding the numbers and stock prices and think about what's really happening, and what shifting all this capital means. I am putting on two hats at once to connect these financial actions with reality. The answer clearly depends on the caveat described below. If coal can produce power and the economic gain can be profitably allocated to counter environmental and societal damage, then leaving the coal in the ground is the loss that will be incurred when billionaires sell their stock and purchase land rights. That loss will be shared by everybody. Hundreds of thousands of companies' costs will go up, and their profits reduced, due to reduced electricity supply or increased cost of electricity, and their stock prices will be reduced. Production that is marginally profitable will be wiped out. That is the answer. Just like the world would lose out if Sergey and Larry didn't start google. In that alternate universe, the market capitalisation of stocks that rely on search engines would be lower.

[1] With the caveat being the coal could be used to produce enough extra electricity in conjunction with other forms of electricity generation to counter it's own negative effects. That is, at this current moment, instead of using coal, there won't be more utility to spam solar power or wind power in less efficient places today.[2]

[2] Assuming current solar power and wind power has been placed in the most efficient places already.