You missed his point. If a person is getting something for cheap (coal fired electricity) while allowing the rest of society to pick up the tab (dealing with climate change), perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to. Putting a dollar value on the damage being done through burning coal and adding that to the bill of the people who prefer to burn coal is the best way for them to take responsibility for their actions.

Your arguments seem to be straight from the conservative playbook. No doubt then you would also object to people getting handouts from the govt. A situation where a person gets cheap electricity and allows someone else to pay for it sounds exactly like a handout.

To level the playing field, let's start by removing the reported $AU4Billion/annum subsidies in Australia to fossil fuels. That amounts to over $AU400 per household per year of taxpayer funds...

You don't have the moral high ground forcing others to absorb the cost of your dirty coal.

Poisoning people is, in general, a great deal less moral than charging them more money.

The dose makes the poison.

If you are thirsty and you become trapped underwater, you don't just get extremely refreshed!

Coal puts out a lot other pollutants that are poisonous. Coal kills far more people than nuclear.

You are paying extra, you are just not realizing it. The environment is subsidizing your "cheap electricity".