The world is allowed to change with new data and new technology.
Not exactly certain of the history, but embracing natural gas after WW2 and through the 1950s was an easy choice for most Americans.
I imagine, someday, the world will change again.
Coal was shifted from the home to the energy plant.
Is this better because the negative effects of coal burning were removed locally and moved to a central location? Or maybe because the local locations can no longer control their own consumption?
Why is that a problem? At this point in the game most things that need to be done to address climate change and pollution are reactionary.
> If this comes down to CO2 there are bigger fish to fry, no?
You can say that about almost anything. There's always "bigger fish to fry", but that doesn't mean we should only ever deal with the "biggest fish". We regulate car emissions even though ships and airplanes are arguably the "bigger fish". We prosecute thefts even though most people would consider prosecuting murders the "bigger fish".