This is completely incorrect. There are numerous studies contradicting this. For example, see a series of studies by Sally Benson at Stanford University. Frankly, both parts of this claim is absurd. Coal-fired generators are particularly poorly-suited to act as a back-up for solar because they generally are very expensive to ramp up and down, so they are used almost everywhere around the world as baseload generators. Natural gas or hydro are much better suited as backup. This sentence belies a lack of understanding of energy technologies and markets.

This is misleading. It is true that prices have rapidly increased, largely due to high natural gas prices from the start-up of gas liquefaction plants. However, there are plenty of other regions within countries (note South Australia is a region within the country of Australia) with just as high or higher electricity prices. How about villages in Alaska? Small islands? This claim is just misleading.

This is incorrect. Sure, if you use exactly the same technologies we have today there is a barrier to the efficiency of polycrystalline solar panels. But there are many other technologies in the works that can have much higher efficiency.

This is not universally agreed upon by experts. The key issue is that it is imprecisely written. I would not be surprised if the intent is correct. But taking it as it is written, it is not clear what "every tool available" includes. Technically, this should include truly everything, including simply shutting down all manufacturing that uses fossil fuels at all. Banning the driving of any vehicle except electric vehicles run on renewables. Banning flying. I doubt that was the intent of the sentence. The same issue holds for "moving as quickly as they can." What are the limits to"as quickly as they can"? Does it including shutting down the economy? Or is the intended sentence "moving as quickly as they cost-effectively can"? Thus, in short, while the idea is correct, this is imprecisely worded and can easily be critiqued.

This is correct. It cannot be done by only a few nations--it requires collective action to make a substantial difference.

This is correct. Our atmosphere is a global public good and addressing the issue requires large-scale action by most players.

The basic idea of this sentence is correct--that these cleaner sources may be somewhat costlier in the short run, but they also provide benefits that offset the short-run costs. The second part of the sentence is technically correct given that it uses the word "could," which provides a lot of leeway. A more complete story is that a switch towards these cleaner technologies on the margin for electricity would pay for itself given reasonable estimates of the health costs of fossil fuel generation and the social cost of carbon. It's also worth noting though that an immediate switch entirely to these technologies would incur transition costs that would likely tip the balance in the cost-benefit analysis, depending on the social cost of carbon used and what sectors we are talking about (are we talking about just electricity? industry? transport?). The vagueness of the statement means that it is less meaningful, but more difficult to critique.

See above for why it is misleading to say that Americans would be put out of work. Some Americans would be put out of work, while new jobs would open up for others. On net, most evidence suggests that there would be job growth, rather than a decline in jobs.

This statement is misleading. If it said "increases energy prices," it is correct. But it says "increases energy costs," which is incorrect because energy efficiency is expected to reduce energy costs on net.

This is simply untrue. The costs would be relatively minor in most modeled estimates and the benefits have been shown to be greater than the costs. Again, see: https://www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/docs/ria/utilities_ria_final-clean-power-plan-existing-units_2015-08.pdf

This statement is incorrect. It is true that the Economic Reliability Council of Texas states that energy PRICES will increase by 16% (not costs - prices). However, with the additional energy efficiency investments the Clean Power Plan would encourage, total energy costs are modeled to decline, rather than increase (see https://www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/docs/ria/utilities_ria_final-clean-power-plan-existing-units_2015-08.pdf).

This is misleading. While coal burning has become cleaner due to regulations on the air pollutants it emits, it still emits copious amounts of carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas. Carbon capture and sequestration technologies have proven to be expensive and troubled (For example, see https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/05/science/kemper-coal-mississippi.html).

This is possible, but hard to defend based on the evidence known today. Regulations to reduce greenhouse gases would lead to a re-optimization in the economy. For example, there would be fewer jobs at coal power plants, but more jobs in renewable energy. Whether net jobs increase or decrease depends very much on the "job intensity" of services provided in these sectors. Most estimates suggest that the job intensity is higher for renewables than for fossil fuel plants and fossil fuel extraction. See https://www.bls.gov/green/ for very solid (but somewhat dated) evidence on green jobs in the United States.

This is unlikely. Other modeled analyses, such as those for the Clean Power Plan have shown that monthly utility costs would decline under action due to increased energy efficiency investments. See EPA's regulatory impact analysis: https://www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/docs/ria/utilities_ria_final-clean-power-plan-existing-units_2015-08.pdf

It is true that this is what the NERA study says, with many caveats. However, this statement is misleading and taken out of context. There are three reasons for this. First, and most importantly, the NERA study looked at the costs of a hypothetical set of policy actions. These may not be the actions that will be taken to comply with the Paris Agreement. One could easily model other actions with much lower costs. Second, it is only the costs that are modeled. The benefits from avoiding climate change (sea level rises, greater storm surges, greater spread of diseases, etc) are entirely ignored. The net costs from the policies would be entirely different and likely even positive. Third, there is some cherry-picking going on here. The NERA model is known to be inflexible in how it allows for innovation to influence economic activity, and thus it tends to provide much higher cost estimates than other well-known models such as the U.S. Department of Energy's NEMS or ICF Consulting's IPM. The NERA model provides useful information, but it is important for it to be taken in context of model results from other models and not cherry-picked as was done here.