That sounds like the slippery slope fallacy. That kind of thinking doesn't necessarily _lead_ anywhere, and even if it did, that doesn't make it wrong. The argument itself is sound.
No one suggested "the wholesale curtailment of liberties". That's a strawman.
There are negative externalities associated with many activities, coal power generation is one of them. The external cost of coal power is at least more than twice the normal market price of the electricity[1]. This is the when you ignore external effects such as those that take place through water, soils, noise, or carbon dioxide and its effect on climate change.
So the actual price is actually at least three times higher. Why not just bill the polluter for the damage they do and then let the market decide which is better based on the true price?
No one suggested "the wholesale curtailment of liberties". That's a strawman.
There are negative externalities associated with many activities, coal power generation is one of them. The external cost of coal power is at least more than twice the normal market price of the electricity[1]. This is the when you ignore external effects such as those that take place through water, soils, noise, or carbon dioxide and its effect on climate change.
So the actual price is actually at least three times higher. Why not just bill the polluter for the damage they do and then let the market decide which is better based on the true price?
[1] https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649