[cbrozefsky]

You are myopic in a focus on subsidies, and you need to consider both current costs, and how they are externalized from coal plants to the population, and what the cost will be in the future from the pollutants (carbon and others).

Policy has only started to make them pay for the cost of their pollution, and as they are being made too, it's become increasingly more expensive to run a coal fired power plant. Last one more than 100mw was built in 2013, and no more big ones are being built. The REAL market price of energy must include the cost of eliminating or mitigating these pollutants.

This is also why policy in the US since 2016 has increased the subsidies to renewables: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pd...

When the real price is considered, not just for global warming, but for public health impacts due to particulate and heavy metal and water pollution, coal is dead. It's only hope is to try and continue to externalize those costs on to all of us by crying about regulation and subsidies.

Those subsidies are an investment to avoid paying a radically higher cost in the coming years for public health and climate change disruption. The science and economic are very clear on this. https://www.lancetcountdownus.org/2023-lancet-countdown-u-s-...