Wrong. People commiting to renewables early drive and support the market, which overtime drives down prices due to more and more people improving the tech and manufacturing process, which is what leads to the prices to come down.
Anyway the point stands. It isn't fair but the people who avoided being involved are going to be much, much better off than those that did.
Citation needed.
>the people who avoided being involved are going to be much, much better off than those that did
Even if this was true, it does not "vindicate the regressives". We can't all expect to be able to mooch off someone else all the time.
It does vindicate those people who were calling for a tax on the externalities of fossil fuels though.
> We can't all expect to be able to mooch off someone else all the time.
For technological improvements we actually can. In a way it is the norm. Most technologies start small somewhere, get economic, then scale up (albeit because they had no other choice).
> It does vindicate those people who were calling for a tax on the externalities of fossil fuels though.
Are these plants closing because of a tax on externalities? The article suggests the alternatives are cheaper in their own right. If coal plants become uneconomic without a somewhat artificial sin tax then the sin tax proponents aren't vindicated. They would be making an inevitable transition more expensive.