1) Whenever a paper chooses to use a particular lexicon of terms, and an arguable framing, it will be viewed as prejudicial its not going to create trust in its claims. For example, the so-called "subsidy" to fossil fuels is not, in common language, a real subsidy (payment) to fossil fuel providers. More accurately, it is a social-economic cost created by the fossil fuel users (not providers) on 'the commons'.
2) However, the costs (real or imagined) that are imposed on the commons, are usually offset by the benefits are also given to the commons. In other words, in the aggregate, the commons is indirectly "paying" for its own use of the environment and social commons. Of course, such 'payment' by the commons is in the form of worse health, economic costs, or decreased quality of life for some, but it also increases the quality of life for many others.
And remember that many others already "pay" for their benefits indirectly because of government mandates which make them pay more for products and services than they need-want to, e.g.; the car owner has to pay more to purchase cars that meet mandated MPG and pollution standards, and as such they suffer a financial and consumer preference loss-cost.
3) Of course, an efficient market allocation of costs requires those who use the commons to pay for damages and use of the commons. However, it also requires that government cease its mandates and regulations of those who fully reimburse for said damages (costs). Rest assured, those who want a carbon or pollution tax on gasoline don't want to give up the power to mandate more costly transportation.
In short: there is nothing wrong with pointing out that agriculture and forestry, utilities, transportation, waste management, construction, and manufacturing cause the most of the gross environmental damage, BUT also be reminded that they are also the most heavily regulated and mandate bound. In fact, freeing them from such mandates make a lot of sense IF they are required to pay a tax for damages AND if that tax actually goes to those damaged (not the pocket of the government).