Weirdness in Wyoming?

Coal is, by far, the dirtiest of the non-renewable energy sources. Coal's use in power stations and steel-making will have to cease, to have any chance of constraining global heating. The fumes from burning coal also cause deaths and ill-health. The state of Wyoming produces 40% of the coal that is mined in the US. Wyoming currently produces 14 times more energy, than it uses (the state has a relatively small population). The state's finances are heavily dependent on the sale of coal. Wyoming's governor has reportedly set up a $1.2m fund for litigation (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/07/wyoming-coal-threat-mining-republican-governor). The governor's fund is to enable him sue states, refusing to buy coal, turning instead to solar and wind power. It would seem extremely bizzare (but comparable things have happened) if courts ruled, that the financial income of a single state was more important than the survival of the planet. Dollars versus death? The tail wagging the dog? One can have sympathy for Wyoming's financial plight. It surely would be better, however, to use any available finances (including government aid) to help set up alternative means of income generation? Why make lawyers any richer?