"IMF has calculated the total global subsides for fossil fuels...

"IMF has calculated the total global subsides for fossil fuels to be US$5.2 trillion (6.5% of global GDP), of which direct subsidies (consumption/supply tax subsidies) is US$728 billion…. [2]. Definition of madness."

My definition of madness is people that blindly devour headlines and morph to Chicken Little's, as all the spinoff commentary appears to have done.

Firstly, it does NOT represents the views of the IMF, but the opinions of the authors in a working paper, clear disclaimer.

Secondly, your claimed "subsidies" are NOT monetary but a totally theoretical, an attempt to "cost" emissions : "under charging for domestic air pollution accounting for about half of the total subsidy and global warming about a quarter.", whereas I can simply flip that and say if fossil fuels did not create those emissions there would be zero subsidies.

I could ridicule more of their kumbaya, such as trying to factor a cost to aging populations, but not relevant here, rather how does plugging BEV into an even partially coal fired grid impact on the "cost" of these emissions?

This kind of spinning in circles, down the rabbit hole, stuff comes at a massive cost when we could be spending the funds seeking intelligent solutions, like stopping the burning in Indonesia, Amazon, contesting China's sponsorship of 300 coal fired power stations in developing nations, etc.

And of course making sure the next transitional decade is successful in reaching or bettering vehicle emissions caps, which will take a great deal more than just grid leeches.