The cost of extraction and use of fossil fuels is much lower than the real cost of using them. A carbon tax system can fix some of that and let the market do it's thing properly with more complete information.
We're also cutting down flora at an unprecedented rate for meat farming and other uses.
Flora also don't grow that rapidly. Fossil fuels are compacted, sequestered carbon from thousands of years.
Are you sure?
“A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25 [,2016].
[…]
The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
[…]
Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth.
[…]
Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University.”
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-green...
Your third claim (flora also don't grow that rapidly) is just an assertion that doesn't really make sense to me. And the final statement about fossil fuels is a non sequitur.
Maybe in Europe, only. But absolutely not globally. The amazon deforestation alone...
> Increased temperatures can lengthen growing seasons, higher carbon dioxide concentrations can enhance plant growth, and in some areas rainfall and the availability of water resources can increase as a result of climate change.
See https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/6766014682496426...
However, as that document goes into, the benefit from the extra flora won't be enough to offset the negative impacts of increased CO2.
But it's ok because it makes gasoline cheap, and hey, we can figure out how to clean^H^H^H^H^H make more money on the cleanup when people start dying.
Climate change was always a lie. As the planet warms, the premium for a safe and healthy planet increases, and innovations in clean energy technology continue progress.
Plus, they've always done it before in a similar situation.
King Hubbert's prediction was true.
Campbell and Laherrère's prediction was also true.
(You can say that they failed to predict the tight oil and bituminous sands boom, focusing instead on the (thankfully still completely uneconomical) oil shale potential, but the gist of them being extremely dirty and expensive also fits.)
This is because they were looking to support a policy position to stop oil usage and trying to build a scientific case, opposed to the other way around.
It was always the opposite of a lie: a logical truism.
If you have a limited resource and an increasing rate of use, there will a point in time where that rate of use peaks, i.e. reaches a maximum and then declines. That's just (very) basic mathematical truth.
And scarcity incentivizing innovations in extraction and processing changes absolutely nothing about it, those things are just (part of) the reason why the peak will be followed by a gradual decline rather than consumption continuing to rise until the day before all reserves are depleted.