Many politicians, scientists, economists, and businesspeople have become concerned about the potential implications of global warming. The largest source of the emissions thought to contribute to global warming is from coal$-$fired power plants. The cost of alternative energy has declined, but it is still higher than coal. In $1980,$ wind$-$power electricity cost $80$ cents per kilowatt hour. Using today's highly efficient turbines with rotor diameters of up to $125$ meters, the cost can be as low as $4$ cents $($about the same as coal$),$ or as much as $20$ cents in places with less wind.Some people have recently suggested that conventional cost comparisons are not adequate because they do not take environmental costs into account. For example, while coal is a very cheap energy source, it is also a significant contributor of greenhouse gases. Should environmental costs be incorporated into decision formulas when planners evaluate new power plants? The basic arguments for and against are as follows.YES: As long as environmental costs are ignored, renewable energy will appear to be too expensive relative to coal.NO: If one country decides to incorporate environmental costs into its decision$-$making process but other countries do not, the country that does so will be at a competitive disadvantage because its products will cost more to produce. Requirement: Write a response indicating your position regarding this situation. Provide support for your view.