We are switching over slowly. That's literally the status quo. The argument of "we could end coal for X dollars" is what introduces the idea of a discrete value into this discussion.
How can you know what we will spend unless you specify a time interval? Clearly we won't be burning coal in 100 years. Maybe not even 50. Or 30.
I left out a variable that you hinted at so let me redefine what I meant.
We need to move to green energy and not count sources of energy from unstable situations. Meaning Germany shouldn't have shut its coal plants relying on gas from Russia as replacement.
The cold war ended in 1989 and first invaded Ukraine in 2014, with obvious hints at being authoritarian prior to that. Russia is not a friendly country and shouldn't have been considered one this quickly.
They said "could" not "should." It was, for me, context, a reference point. Such statements help push back against what is often misguided conventional wisdom. They shine light on our priorities, or the lack thereof.
