The article is a summary of a larger proposal. Even in the article, they state that power generation will be transitioned to other fuels / sources, workers retrained, etc.
There's no mention of how they plan on doing this.
What are you going to retrain the workers to do? How are you going to "create job opportunities and prosperity for coal-based communities" ? There's nothing substantial in this article. These people think that they can replace coal overnight with unicorn farts and sunshine.
The coal industry is bad for the environment. Yeah, we get it. However, it's a major part of the economy and one of the leading producers of electricity. While trying to transition from coal is a noble intent, there's nothing of value in this article. There isn't any plan, there isn't even a good premise.
The article starts by saying "Would you make a one time $50 (£31) investment to save $100-500 each year?" Then it goes on to talk about the "benefits" that buying out the coal industry has. This isn't a good comparison. If I make an investment, I want a return on that investment, not some intangible benefits. If I want intangible benefits like a warm fuzzy feeling, it's called charity. Now, there's nothing wrong with charity, but TFA starts out talking about investments so now they're just misleading the reader.
They go on to talk about coal's "dark future" and how it's a "dead end industry." Ok, so let it die. There's no need to blow $50B on a "dead end industry."