This transition from burning fossil fuels to new technologies is, of course, complex on many levels. However, the idea that we shouldn't pursue the right answer because this will be hard is quite simply - wrong (there is a pretty fulsome list of horrible historical examples of the status quo being maintained because change seemed too hard).
The idea that we are not ready to understand the true cost of our energy choices (I just hit on climate disruption costs in this piece, but there is a pretty compelling argument about healthcare costs as well) simply because the coming transition looks challenging would be a really sad outcome indeed.
We’re paying the external costs for emissions, it’s simply a question of whether that’s in conjunction with consumption as a tax on consumption or through taxes and losses as a result of the consequence of the emissions. On a macro level this is a zero sum equation. Do we need to find ways to protect certain classes from bearing an unfair portion of the costs of this transition, of course, but just because that will be hard isn’t an excuse to continue to embrace a system that is wrong.