Without significant political change there will not be significant economic or (positive) environmental change. The article proposes paying the people who are

Without significant political change there will not be significant economic or (positive) environmental change. The article proposes paying the people who are destroying the world to stop destroying the world. But even if we could make a significant dent in coal production in this way, what's to stop the coal companies from reinvesting that money in finding new coal sources and lobbying for continued lax policies? Relying on private property and market forces is generally the proposal of people who have a lot of private property and are therefore favored by market forces. I'd rather take the money away from the people who are destroying the world and devote that money to saving the world. If you want to use market forces to drive up the price of coal, how about lobbying for taxes on coal, and having the money from those taxes go to renewable energy sources? Billionaires can lobby, and at least that way, they're ensuring that the money goes somewhere useful. Let's stop pretending government isn't a market force. Coal companies have no qualms about lobbying government, why should we? Capitalist solutions to this problem have been tried and have done shit all. It's time we tried something else.