"We all will have to pay a price for burning fossil fuels, but unfortunately the bulk of that price will not be paid by those who burn fossil fuels. It is a classic problem of a negative externality: The profits of an activity — in this case, burning fossil fuels to generate energy — are privatized, while the costs, to human health and the environment, are socialized."

Unfortunately I believe the above statement may be inaccurate and misleading. The only reason any company can achieve a profit, is by providing a good or service which the public wants or needs with a degree of necessity or desire to pay for that good or service. In this case the "public good" willingly paid for that provides the profit on fossil fuels is inexpensive, continually available mobility, comfort of temperate domiciles, and readily available goods through a system of transportation. While the "costs" of burning fossil fuels are to society, so are the "benefits". Therein is the difficulty. While alternatives have made great gains in both cost and capability, they are yet insufficient to provide the public "benefits" of burning fossil fuels. This may / hopefully be achieved in a timely manner, but pushing cost or restrictions on the burning of fossil fuels more rapidly than the suitability of alternatives can be realized is merely imposing an additional cost / burden on the public. Three issues unfortunately seldom discussed need to be considered. First and foremost what is the realistic timeframe of alternatives matching the cost, comfort, efficiency, and availability of the benefits that arise from burning fossil fuels. Second, is a carbon sink solution together with the technical ability to decarbonize the burning of fossil fuels more or less costly and timely that eliminating fossil fuels. Third man's proven adaptability to the environment may be over stating the posited risks of climate change.