Let's take your assertion at face value, assume you are correct. You're saying, WORST CASE, likely with cooked numbers in your favor, that the net benefit of C

Let's take your assertion at face value, assume you are correct. You're saying, WORST CASE, likely with cooked numbers in your favor, that the net benefit of CURRENT manufacturing is equivalent? Okay, let's ask the next question: With the LCOE of coal being fundamentally noncompetitive with wind and solar, what do you think the future of coal-based production is? Right, coal is being actively phased out wherever possible for wind/solar that is simply plummeting in cost, and likely has a decade of cost drops. And if they are using a grid, what is the switching cost by the factories to use wind/solar? Oh right, probably nothing, since they just pull from ... the grid. So let's say natural gas turbine took over a lot of coal? Well, the carbon emissions of natural gas turbine are better than coal in the short run, but solar/wind are now beating natural gas turbine, and natural gas turbine is the absolute last gasp of carbon-based energy production trying to take on wind/solar. So, even if we accept your proposition that it "doesn't matter", and likely those numbers are already years old and alternative energy adoption is drastically ahead of the IEA's projections in the last decade or so, the fact of the matter is that the ball is rolling in the right direction, and anyone with half a policy brain realizes that. And again, the coal/natural gas/ICE technologies are played out. They have maximized their efficiencies, and wind/solar/EV is already better than in in most meaningful ways, and the technology for wind/solar/EV in terms of economies of scale, design refinement, fundamental technology like perovskites compound cells in solar and sodium ion/LFP/LMFP/sulfur techs have likely 10-20 years of runway left.