The Constitution divides responsibilities between the federal government, state governments, and the people. Education is left to the states which largely leave it up to localities.
It's kind of like saying that "The United States spends ten times as much on army helmets as it does on state parks". Well, duh, the states pay for state parks.
The reasoning is "we will eventually have to pay for climate change and air pollution, so let's add that to the cost calculation for accuracy." This is reasonable (depending on the accuracy of your estimates) but it has to be accompanied by another calculation -- what would we have to pay for in the absence of fossil fuels that we're not paying for now? Likely quite a bit, at the very least in the loss of tax revenue caused by the economic slowdown. An estimate that looks at the cost of consequences is meaningless if you don't include all the relevant consequences of both action and inaction.
Such a waste. Another example of how subsidies result in bad incentives. It’s surprising that renewables have even reached their current level with such gross inequality prevailing. Imagine how much cleaner the air would be without these subsidies.
The subsidy number you're referring to is calcuated by adding negative externalities related to air pollution and climate change to the numbers. Those estimates don't reflect funds that could have been spent elsewhere and it doesn't reflect funding priority.
Then again, it's kind of crazy to pick up negative externalities in a calculation of a "subsidy." By that reasoning, anything measurably bad that the government hasn't outlawed yet is a "subsidy" if you look at it the right way. How much do we spend in the U.S. subsidizing opiod addiction? Murder? Car crashes?