The analysis of the "skeptics" almost always leaves out the vast externalized costs of traditional energy sources. Yes, this is the chief fallacy in the artic

The analysis of the "skeptics" almost always leaves out the vast externalized costs of traditional energy sources. Yes, this is the chief fallacy in the article and it deserves to be highlighted. Fossil fuels are even more heavily subsidized than alternative energy sources, but the subsidies are hidden in other expenses such as medical costs and drought-driven food prices. There is after all a reason that we're looking for alternative energy, and it's because we're finding the true cost of fossil fuels is much too high, regardless what the subsidized price may be.